Gundel, Douglas B.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 16, 2020

13985074 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/985,074 08/13/2013 Douglas B. Gundel 64239US005 8314
32692 7590 04/16/2020
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
EXAMINER
LOPEZ, RICARDO E.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/16/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DOUGLAS B. GUNDEL
____________

Appeal 2019-004082
Application 13/985,074
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1–10.2 We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies 3M Company and 3M Innovative
Properties Company as the real parties in interest. Appeal Brief filed
November 29, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2.
2 Final Office Action entered August 7, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 1.
Appeal 2019-004082
Application 13/985,074

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant claims a high speed transmission cable. Appeal Br. 2–3.
Independent claims 1 and 4 illustrate the subject matter on appeal, and are
reproduced below with contested subject matter italicized:
1. A high speed transmission cable comprising
a first inner conductor and
a longitudinal dielectric film extending along a length of
the dielectric film and the cable and comprising a base layer
including a plurality of first protrusions and second protrusions
formed on a first major surface of the base layer and a plurality
of third protrusions formed on a portion of an opposing second
major surface of the base layer,
wherein the first protrusions and the second protrusions
are different and
wherein in a transverse cross-section of the dielectric
film perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the dielectric
film, the first and second protrusions are arranged in a row and
spaced apart from each other, and
wherein at least a portion of the dielectric film is
concentric with the inner conductor such that the first
protrusions are disposed between the first inner conductor and
the base layer, the first protrusions forming an insulating
envelope around the first inner conductor, and
wherein at least a portion of one of the first and second
protrusions interlock with the third protrusions when the
dielectric film is wrapped around the first conductor.

4. A high speed transmission cable comprising
a first inner conductor and
a longitudinal dielectric film extending along a length of
the dielectric film and the cable and comprising a base layer
including a plurality of first protrusions and second protrusions
formed on a first major surface of the base layer,
wherein the first protrusions and the second protrusions
are different and
wherein in a transverse cross-section of the dielectric
film perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the dielectric
Appeal 2019-004082
Application 13/985,074

3
film, the first and second protrusions are arranged in a row and
spaced apart from each other, and
wherein at least a portion of the dielectric film is
concentric with the inner conductor such that the first
protrusions are disposed between the first inner conductor and
the base layer, the first protrusions forming an insulating
envelope around the first inner conductor,
wherein the base layer of the dielectric material includes
a thinned portion, and
wherein first protrusions are formed on either side of the
thinned portion and the second protrusions are formed on the
thinned portion so that bases of the second protrusions are
lower than bases of the first protrusions.

Appeal Br. 7–8 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis and spacing added).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s
Answer entered March 7, 2019 (“Ans.”):
I. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gill;3 and
II. Claims 1–3 and 5–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gill in view of McMahon4 and Schroeder.5
FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and rejection of claims 1–3 and 5–10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for reasons set forth in the Appeal and Reply
Briefs, and below.

3 GB 2 169 437 A, published July 9, 1986.
4 US 3,496,281, issued February 17, 1970.
5 US 5,283,948, issued February 8, 1994.
Appeal 2019-004082
Application 13/985,074

4
Independent claims 1 and 4 both require the recited high speed
transmission cable to comprise, in part, a longitudinal dielectric film
comprising a base layer that includes a plurality of first protrusions and
second protrusions formed on a first major surface of the base layer, and in a
transverse cross-section of the dielectric film perpendicular to the
longitudinal direction of the dielectric film, the first and second protrusions
are arranged in a row and spaced apart from each other.
Rejection I
We first address the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Gill.
The Examiner finds that Gill discloses a coaxial cable comprising
central conductor 1 (first inner conductor) coaxial with tubular outer
conductor 2. Final Act. 2–3; see also Gill p. 1, ll. 79–80, Fig. 2). The
Examiner finds that Gill discloses that plastic spacers 3 made up of a
plurality of segments 4 having pyramid shape (first protrusions) separate the
two conductors, and radiate inward from dielectric plastic strip 5 (base
layer), which is folded longitudinally around central conductor 1 such that
segments 4 (first protrusions) extend inwards to contact central conductor 1.
Final Act. 3 (citing Gill p. 1, ll. 55–60, 76–99); see also Gill p. 1, ll. 86–92,
Figs. 1 and 2. The Examiner finds that Gill discloses that strengthening ribs
8 (second protrusions) extend longitudinally from dielectric plastic strip 5
between respective segments 4. Final Act. 3 (citing Gill p. 1, ll. 100–101);
see also Gill Figs. 1 and 2.
The Examiner finds that Figure 1 of Gill depicts an embodiment in
which Gill’s segments 4 (first protrusions) and strengthening ribs 8 (second
protrusions) have a “shape and location” that “meet the limitations” in claim
Appeal 2019-004082
Application 13/985,074

5
4 “requiring that in a cross section view of the dielectric film perpendicular
to the longitudinal direction of said film, the first and second protrusions are
arranged in a row and spaced apart from each other.” Final Act. 3. More
specifically, the Examiner finds that Figure 1 of Gill depicts “a cross section
view” showing segments 4 (first protrusions) and strengthening ribs 8
(second protrusions) “extending longitudinally between respective segments
4, corresponding to Appellant’s second protrusions arranged in a row and
spaced apart from each other.” Ans. 10. The Examiner also finds that “the
cross sectional view of the embodiment depicted in FIG. 2” of Gill “shows
that protrusions 4 and protrusions 8 are separated apart.” Final Act. 4.
On the record before us, however, the Examiner does not provide a
sufficient factual basis to establish that Gill discloses a longitudinal
dielectric film comprising first and second protrusions arranged in a row,
and spaced apart from each other in a transverse cross-section of the
dielectric film perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the dielectric film,
as required by claim 4.
Significantly, the Examiner does not address the requirement in claim
4 of first and second protrusions arranged in a row and spaced apart from
each other in a transverse cross-section of the dielectric film perpendicular
to a longitudinal direction of the dielectric film. Rather, the Examiner finds
that Figure 1 of Gill depicts “a cross section view” —rather than a transverse
cross-section— showing segments 4 (first protrusions) and strengthening
ribs 8 (second protrusions) “extending longitudinally between respective
segments 4.” And the Examiner finds that “the cross sectional view of the
embodiment depicted in FIG. 2” of Gill—rather than a transverse cross
Appeal 2019-004082
Application 13/985,074

6
sectional view— “shows that protrusions 4 and protrusions 8 are separated
apart.” Final Act. 4 (emphasis added).
As Appellant points out, any transverse cross section of the coaxial
cable depicted in each of Figures 1 and 2 of Gill would include either
segments 4 (first protrusions) or strengthening ribs 8 (second protrusions),
but would not include both segments 4 (first protrusions) and strengthening
ribs 8 (second protrusions) arranged in a row and spaced apart from each
other. Appeal Br. 4; Reply B. 2–3 (illustrating cross-sectional views of the
coaxial cable depicted in both Figures 1 and 2 of Gill). For example, as
Appellant explains, the transverse cross-section of the coaxial cable shown
in Figure 1 of Gill represented by the front face of the cable includes only
strengthening ribs 8 (second protrusions), and does not include segments 4
(first protrusions). Id. When Gill’s segments 4 and strengthening ribs 8 are
arranged in a row, they are not spaced apart from each other, as required by
claim 4, but instead are co-located, as argued by Appellant. Appeal Br. 4;
Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner does not cite to any portion of Gill other than Figures 1
and 2 for disclosure of first and second protrusions arranged in a row and
spaced apart from each other in a transverse cross-section of the dielectric
film perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the dielectric film, as
required by claim 4. Consequently, because Gill’s Figures 1 and 2 do not
depict first and second protrusions so arranged, the Examiner does not
provide a sufficient factual basis to establish that Gill discloses this feature
of the high speed transmission cable recited in claim 4.
We, accordingly, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gill.
Appeal 2019-004082
Application 13/985,074

7
Rejection II
We turn now to the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1–3 and 5–10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gill in view of McMahon and
Schroeder.
The Examiner again finds that “the cross sectional view of the
embodiment depicted in FIG. 2 [of Gill] shows that protrusions 4 and
protrusions 8 are separated apart” meeting the limitation in claim 1
“requiring that in a cross section view of the dielectric film perpendicular to
the longitudinal direction of said film, the first and second protrusions are
arranged in a row and spaced apart from each other in a transverse direction
of the dielectric film, the first and second protrusions are spaced apart from
each other.” Final Act. 7.
The Examiner, however, does not identify any disclosure in Gill,
McMahon, and Schroeder, considered individually and in combination, that
teaches or would have suggested a high speed transmission cable comprising
a longitudinal dielectric film comprising first and second protrusions
arranged in a row, and spaced apart from each other in a transverse cross-
section of the dielectric film perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the
dielectric film, as required by claim 1. In other words, the Examiner does
not rely on McMahon, and Schroeder for any disclosure that remedies the
deficiencies in the Examiner’s reliance on Gill, discussed more fully above
in connection with the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
We, accordingly, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1,
and claims 2, 3, and 5–10, which each depend from claim 1, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gill in view of McMahon and Schroeder.

Appeal 2019-004082
Application 13/985,074

8

CONCLUSION

Claims

35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
4 102(b) Gill 4
1–3, 5–10 103(a) Gill, McMahon,
Schroeder
1–3, 5–10
Overall
Outcome
1–10

REVERSED