SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2020

14059532 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 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.
14/059,532 10/22/2013 MARK W. DURON 102386US01 2451
126568 7590 04/01/2020
Zebra Technologies Corporation
3 Overlook Point
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
EXAMINER
HU, JENNIFER F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2020 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):
docketing@zebra.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________ 

Ex parte MARK W. DURON and DANIELLA N. STRAT
________________

Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. An extendable and reconfigurable antenna apparatus for
extending a conductive monopole antenna element, the apparatus
comprising:

[L1] an extended antenna element including a junction having a
mechanical structure configured to clasp the conductive monopole
antenna element mechanically;

[L2] an insulating coupler; and

a conductive tube mechanically coupled to the extended
antenna element by the insulating coupler, wherein the extended
antenna element, the junction, the insulating coupler, and the
conductive tube form an assembly,

[L3] wherein the assembly is configured to surround the
monopole antenna element with the conductive tube to form a coaxial
transmission line having the conductive monopole antenna element as
a center conductor and the conductive tube as an outer conductor,
where the coaxial transmission line is electrically coupled to the
extended antenna element at the junction, after the mechanical
structure of the junction removably clasps the conductive monopole
antenna element.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Symbol Technologies, LLC is the
real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

3
Br. 14 (emphases added regarding disputed limitations “L1,” “L2,” and
“L3”).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(2) as
being anticipated Rümmeli et al. (US 5,926,149; issued July 20, 1999)
(“Rümmeli”). Final Act. 4–6.
Claims 3 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rümmeli and Demicco et al. (US 7,023,389 B2; issued
April 4, 2006) (“Demicco”). Final Act. 6–8.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Rümmeli and Carr (US 4,433,336; issued February 21, 1984). Final
Act. 8.
Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rümmeli and Brunner et al. (US 3,945,013; issued March
16, 1976) (“Brunner”). Final Act. 8–9.
Claims 4, 5, 12, 14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Rümmeli and Tsunekawa et al. (US 5,617,105;
issued April 1, 1997) (“Tsunekawa”). Final Act. 9–14.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Rümmeli, Tsunekawa, and Demicco. Final Act. 14–15.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Rümmeli, Tsunekawa, and Carr. Final Act. 15.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Rümmeli, Tsunekawa, and Brunner. Final Act. 15–16.

Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

4
ANALYSIS
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Brief.2 Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to
make, in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

A. Whether Rümmeli discloses L1: “an extended antenna element
including a junction having a mechanical structure configured to
clasp the conductive monopole antenna element mechanically”
The Examiner finds that Rümmeli discloses, inter alia, the limitations
of L1: “an extended antenna element (2, Fig. 2) including a junction (6b, 6c,
6d, Fig. 2) having a mechanical structure (6c, Fig. 2) configured to clasp the
conductive monopole antenna element (5d, Fig. 2) mechanically (‘the inner
conductor 5d of the coaxial cable 5 is received in a bore 6c of the pc board
6a and also soldered thereto,’ col. 3, lines 62-68.” Final Act. 4.

1. “an extended antenna element”
Examiner further finds, with respect to Rümmeli and L1:
Claim 1 does not require the extended antenna element to be
comprised of only a single component. Therefore, the
combination of the conductor bar (2) and the junction elements
(6a, 6b, 6c) of Rummeli may reasonably be interpreted as
forming the extended antenna element since it is the junction
elements (6a, 6b, 6c) that allow the antenna element to be
extended.

2 Claims 2–11 are not argued separately from claim 1 in Appellant’s brief
(Br. 7–12), and will not be separately addressed. Claims 13–20 are not
argued separately from claim 12 in Appellant’s brief (id. at 12), and will not
be separately addressed.
Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

5
Final Act. 2 (citations omitted; emphases added).
The Appellant argues that “while element 2 is a first conductor bar,
elements (6a, 6b, 6c, and 6d) all relate to a p.c. board.” Br. 8. The Appellant
contends that, because the first conductor bar and the p.c. board are “entirely
separate and distinct elements,” they “cannot be equated with the claimed
‘extended antenna element.’” Id. (quoting L1). Appellant further argues that,
“if the first conductor bar was attachable to the p.c. board via a connector,
those two elements would not be viewed as one ‘extended antenna
element’”; and also that “the p.c. board should be viewed as an intermediary
element that is separate from both the conductor bar 2 and the coaxial cable
5.” Id.
Our reviewing court dictates that a prior art reference anticipates a
claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if it “disclose[s] each and every element of the
claimed invention . . . arranged or combined in the same way as in the
claim.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted). “However, a reference can anticipate a
claim even if it ‘d[oes] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or
combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the
reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or
combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d
1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (Fed.
Cir. 1962)) (emphasis added). In other words, “a reference need not always
include an express discussion of the actual combination to anticipate.
Instead, a reference may still anticipate if that reference teaches that the
disclosed components or functionalities may be combined and one of skill in
the art would be able to implement the combination.” Blue Calypso, LLC v.
Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

6
Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted;
emphasis added) (holding that a prior art reference disclosing a
communications system having a “campaigns” tool and a separate “refer a
friend campaign” tool, could be combined to anticipate a claim because their
use together could have been contemplated); see also Otonomy, Inc. v. Auris
Med., AG, 743 F. App’x 430, 439 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Per the guidance above, we consider here whether the first conductor
bar and the p.c. board of Rümmeli could be combined such that a skilled
artisan would be able to implement the combination.
Figure 2 of Rümmeli is reproduced below, with annotations to
indicate the first conductor bar and p.c. board components:

Figure 2 shows a coaxial antenna.
First conductor bar
Printed circuit board
Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

7
Here, in Figure 2, the first conductor bar and p.c. board of Rümmeli
are not only capable of being arranged or combined together, but are
physically attached together. Indeed, Rümmeli discloses that “[t]he
conductor bar 2 is received in a bore of the p.c. board 6a.” See col. 4, lines
8–9. Even were the first conductor bar and p.c. board of Rümmeli connected
by a connector, as Appellant would have us consider (Br. 8), they would
nevertheless be connected together and could be construed to correspond to
the claimed extended antenna element. The p.c. board of Rümmeli need not
be an “intermediary element” (id.), since it is directly connected to the first
conductor bar. Figure 2 of Rümmeli further illustrates the Examiner’s
finding that “it is the junction elements (6a, 6b, 6c . . .) that allow the
antenna element to be extended.” Final Act. 2.
Our case law dictates that multiple components may be combined to
teach a claim element if their arrangement or combination could have been
contemplated by a skilled artisan. Such is the case here, where the first
conductor bar and p.c. board of Rümmeli are attached together. See
Rümmeli Annotated Fig. 2, supra. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that Rümmeli discloses the claimed extended antenna element.

2. “including a junction”
The Examiner finds that Rümmeli discloses that the extended antenna
element includes “a junction,” as required in L1. Final Act. 4; Ans. 2.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that the junction of Rümmeli is “where the
conductor bar 2 is received in the bore (6c, Fig. 2), or alternatively, a BNC-
connector or N-connector that joins the coaxial cable to the extended
antenna element (col. 2, lines 55-60).” Ans. 14–15. The Examiner further
Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

8
finds “a junction may be defined as ‘a point where two or more things are
joined.’” Id. at 14.
The Appellant contends that “the claimed ‘junction’ includes a
particularly claimed mechanical structure.” Br. 7.
Our reviewing court has held that “[t]here is a ‘heavy presumption’
that the terms used in claims ‘mean what they say and have the ordinary
meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the
relevant art.’” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870,
874–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Tex. Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308
F.3d 1193, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Although claim terms are interpreted in
light of the specification, we do not read limitations from the specification
into the claims. See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d
1560, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988) (various
limitations on which appellant relied were not stated in the claims; the
specification did not provide evidence indicating these limitations must be
read into the claims to give meaning to the disputed terms); see also In re
Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In
addition, proper claim construction requires a broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
833 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317
(Fed. Cir. 2005).
Per the guidance above, we apply a broad, but reasonable
interpretation of the claim language in view of Appellant’s Specification.
Regarding the claimed “junction,” Appellant’s Specification describes: “the
new element 102 [extended antenna element] will snap-on to the original
element 100 [conductive monopole antenna] at a junction 107, wherein the
Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

9
junction is configured such that the element 102 will mechanically clasp the
original element 100” (Spec. ¶ 13; see also Br. 4) (emphases added); and
“[t]he junction 107 also serves to provide an electrical connection between
the elements 100, 102,” such that there is “an electrical feed point at the
junction 107.” Spec. ¶ 14. Appellant’s Specification further discloses that in
the embodiment of Figures 3 and 4, “the junction 407 can still serve as a
mechanical coupling point for the assembly 306, 105 to the monopole
antenna element 100.” Spec. ¶ 16.
Therefore, we determine that disputed L1 requires a junction that is a
mechanical coupling point (i.e., “a junction having a mechanical structure
configured to clasp the conductive monopole antenna mechanically”). As
such, the definition the Examiner has proffered, namely “a point where two
or more things are joined,” (Ans. 14), appears to be a permissible
interpretation of the term. We do not construe the term “junction having a
mechanical structure” to require any particular mechanical structure,
because, with respect to the remainder of L1 discussed below, Appellant’s
Specification broadly discloses, without defining, that “the junction is
configured such that the element 102 will mechanically clasp the original
element 100.” Spec. ¶ 13. Accordingly, Appellant’s Specification makes
clear that the mechanical structure of the junction is merely a structure that
allows the extended antenna element to mechanically clasp the conductive
monopole antenna, i.e., the extended antenna element has some mechanical
structure to perform that function.
Appellant’s annotated Figure 1 (left) and Rümmeli’s annotated and
inverted Figure 2 (right) are reproduced below for side-by-side comparison,
the latter with annotations indicating the Examiner’s findings:
Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

10

Appellant’s claimed antenna (Figure 1 on left) and Rümmeli’s coaxial
antenna (inverted Figure 2 on right).
Rümmeli discloses that “[t]he inner conductor 5d of the coaxial cable
5 is received in a bore 6c of the p.c. board 6a and also soldered thereto.” See
Rümmeli at col. 4, lines 1–3.
Based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of “junction” in light of
Appellant’s Specification, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
finding that Rümmeli discloses the claimed junction. Namely, we agree with
the Examiner that the bore (e.g., 6c) of the p.c. board of Rümmeli—the p.c.
board discussed supra at § A(1) as being a portion of the extended antenna
element—is a connecting point for the p.c. board and the monopole antenna.
Moreover, Appellant’s Specification does not preclude an interpretation by
the Examiner that the inner conductor 5d of Rümmeli being received and
Junction
Monopole
antenna
Extended
antenna
element
Extended
antenna
element
Junction
(bore)
Monopole
antenna
(inner
conductor)
Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

11
soldered in the bore 6c, is analogous to the mechanical structure required by
L1.
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that the claimed junction
could be “alternatively, a BNC-connector or N-connector that joins the
coaxial cable to the extended antenna element (col. 2, lines 55-60),” (Ans.
14–15), because Rümmeli teaches that a BNC-connector or N-connector
would also function as a connecting point for the p.c. board and the
monopole antenna. See Rümmeli at col. 2, lines 55–60.
The Appellant does not provide arguments for the remaining
limitations in L1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of L1.

B. Whether Rümmeli discloses L2: “an insulating coupler” that is
distinct from “a junction” of L1
The Examiner finds that Rümmeli discloses “an insulating coupler
(‘circuit board,’ 6a, Fig. 2).” Final Act. 4.
The Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly relies on the same
structure, namely the p.c. board and its elements, to disclose both the
junction and the insulating coupler. Br. 9.
Our reviewing court dictates that we assume two different terms in a
claim have two different meanings. See Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S.
Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1340 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he use of two
terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings . . . .”); see
also CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d
1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary,
we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes
Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

12
different meanings.”). We should presume, then, in the absence of contrary
evidence, that the language of claim 1, which requires “a junction” in L1 and
“an insulating coupler” in L2, is a junction that has a different meaning than
an insulating coupler.
We previously discussed Appellant’s claimed junction above, at
§ A(2), as being a connection point. We agree with Appellant that the
Examiner conflates elements of L1 and L2 in finding that the claimed
junction is the bore (6c) of Rümmeli, and the claimed insulating coupler is
the p.c. board (6a) of Rümmeli. Even though the bore of Rümmeli is formed
in the p.c. board and thus may not be a separate structure, we agree with the
Examiner that the claimed junction can also be a BNC- or N-connector. Ans.
14–15 (“Rummeli clearly teaches said junction, which is the point where the
conductor bar 2 is received in the bore (6c, Fig. 2), or alternatively, a BNC-
connector or N-connector that joins the coaxial cable to the extended
antenna element”) (citation omitted).
In view of the Examiner’s finding that Rümmeli teaches an alternative
structure, i.e., a BNC-connector or N-connector, which may replace the
bore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Rümmeli teaches a junction
and a separate insulating coupler. Namely, the bore of Rümmeli can be a
BNC-connector or N-connector in alternate embodiments, as Rümmeli
contemplates (see §C, infra). In these embodiments the connector is a
separate, distinct structure from the p.c. board. Therefore, we do not find that
the Examiner erred in interpreting the junction of L1 to be the BNC-
connector or N-Connector of Rümmeli, and the insulating coupler of L2 to
be the remainder of the p.c. board of Rümmeli. Final Act. 4; Ans. 14–15.

Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

13
C. Whether Rümmeli discloses “the mechanical structure of the junction
removably clasps the conductive monopole antenna element,” of L3
The Examiner finds that Rümmeli discloses the disputed language of
L3 in the form of a BNC-connector, N-standard, or corresponding plug.
Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds Rümmeli to disclose: “Suitably, the printed
circuit board is further equipped with a coaxial connector, e.g. BNC-
connector or N-standard, or a corresponding plug in order to allow
attachment of the coaxial cable in a simple manner to the antenna according
to the invention.” Id. (quoting Rümmeli at col. 2, lines 56–60). The
Examiner additionally finds that:
[w]hile the removable connector may be in be disclosed as
“another embodiment,” Rummeli is not disclosing multiple,
distinct teachings that the Examiner is somehow combining to
achieve the claimed invention. Rummeli is explicitly teaching
any embodiment may further comprise a coaxial connector or a
corresponding plug in order to allow attachment in a simple
manner.

Final Act. 3–4 (emphases added). Furthermore, the Examiner finds that
Rümmeli discloses replacing the bore of Figure 2 with a BNC-connector or
N-connector, because Rümmeli discloses that, “[p]ersons skilled in the art
will understand that the bore for the cable may also be substituted by a
BNC-connector or BNC-plug or by a N-connector or N-plug for attachment
to the coaxial cable 5 to the coaxial antenna according to the present
invention.” Ans. 16 (citing Rümmeli at col. 4, lines 50–55; emphasis added).
The Appellant contends that the Examiner improperly relies on
multiple embodiments of Rümmeli. Br. 10. Specifically, Appellant argues
that the above disclosure of Rümmeli “pertains to an embodiment that is
Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

14
different from the embodiment used to reject the remainder of claim 1, and
thus, cannot be relied on in the current rejection.” Appellant argues:
when read in context, the disclosure relating to the use of a
connector/plug appears to pertain to a specific embodiment
associated with an impedance matching network. To explain
further, the relied-on disclosure appears in a paragraph that
begins with the sentence “According to another embodiment of
the present invention, an impedance matching network is
arranged on the printed circuit board.” That sentence is
followed by a second sentence teaching the use of a
connector/plug, with that sentence beginning with the word
“Suitably.” This adjective (i.e., “suitably”) links the description
related to the use of a connector/plug with the earlier
description of an embodiment having the impedance matching
network. Finally, the teaching of the connector/plug is followed
up with a third sentence relating to the impedance matching
network.
In view of this paragraph structure, Applicants
respectfully submit that the use of the connector/plug in
Rummeli is not expressly taught to apply to every embodiment
as alleged by the Office Action. Instead, it is expressly taught
as being used in the embodiment that utilizes the impedance
matching network.

Br. 10–11 (citations omitted; emphases added).
In response, the Examiner finds that:
[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading this section of the
disclosure, would not assume an entirely different antenna
structure, but would understand that the printed circuit board
(6, Fig. 2) of the disclosed embodiment may be further
equipped with a coaxial connector. . . .
[T]he addition of the impedance matching network is also a
clearly disclosed modification of the antenna device of Fig. 2
(“the impedance matching network is formed as coils and/or
capacitors upon the printed circuit board,” (col, 2, lines 60-
62). The addition of the impedance matching network and/or
coaxial connector to the antenna device of Fig. 2 are thus
Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

15
clearly taught. Again, one of ordinary skill in the art would not
assume this part of the disclosure is referring to an entirely
different printed circuit board of an entirely different antenna
device, but would understand the disclosure in reference to
Figs. 1 and 2.

Ans. 15–16 (emphases added).
  Our reviewing court guides that “[a]nticipation requires the presence
in a single prior art reference disclosure of each and every element of the
claimed invention, arranged as in the claim.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(citing Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1983);
SSIH Equip. S.A. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 718 F.2d 365 (Fed. Cir.
1983)). Furthermore, “[a]nticipation requires disclosure of all of the
limitations of a claim in one place, not by combination of multiple
disclosures.” N. Am. Oil Co. v. Star Brite Distrib., Inc., 46 F. App’x 629,
631 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Richardson v. Suzuki, 868 F.2d 1226, 1236
(Fed. Cir. 1989) (holding that “separate disclosures in different parts of a
multiple volume treatise . . . can[not] be combined” to anticipate a claim).
Where there are “multiple, distinct teachings,” there must be “guidance in
the disclosure to link them together.” Otonomy, 743 F. App’x at 439. In
other words, the disclosure must be “without any need for picking, choosing,
and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the
teachings of the cited reference.” In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA
1972).
In the present case, we determine that a portion of Rümmeli to which
the Examiner cites, namely “[p]ersons skilled in the art will understand that
the bore for the cable may also be substituted by a BNC-connector or BNC-
Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

16
plug or by a N-connector or N-plug for attachment to the coaxial cable 5 to
the coaxial antenna according to the present invention,” (Ans. 16 (citing
Rümmeli at col. 4, lines 50–55)), provides a link between the Figure 2
embodiment of Rümmeli and the BNC- and N-connectors or plugs. The
disclosed bore is illustrated in Figure 2 of Rümmeli. See annotated Fig. 2,
supra, at § A(2). Moreover, Rümmeli discloses that this bore “may . . . be
substituted” with a connector or plug. See Rümmeli at col. 4, lines 50–55.
Therefore, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments of Examiner
error, because there is express guidance in the disclosure of Rümmeli to link
together the bore of Figure 2 and the alternative BNC-connector, BNC-plug,
N-connector, or N-plug.
The Appellant also contends that, even were the connector of
Rümmeli placed into the antenna, Rümmeli:
is completely devoid of any structural details that would
indicate what elements are added/omitted/modified relative to
the embodiment of FIG. 2. In essence, Applicants have nothing
before them that would indicate which of the remaining claimed
elements are still present as alleged in the rejection of claim 1,
which of those elements are modified, and which or [sic] those
elements are absent.
Br. 11–12.
We disagree. Rümmeli discloses that “the bore for the cable may . . .
be substituted” for the connector or plug (see Rümmeli at col. 4, lines 50–
55), and therefore clearly indicates that the connector or plug replaces the
bore in Figure 2 of Rümmeli.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipated rejection
of the disputed limitations of claim 1.
Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

17
Finally, Appellant argues (Br. 12) the patentability of claim 12 based
on the same reasons presented for claim 1, which were found to be
unpersuasive. Appellant also asserts its invention is not obvious over
Rümmeli and Tsunekawa because Tsunekawa does not cure the deficiencies
of Rümmeli (Appeal. Br. 12). As set forth above, Appellant has not
persuaded us the Examiner erred. Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in
finding the combination of Rümmeli and Tsunekawa teaches or suggests the
invention as recited in claim 12. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Rümmeli
and Tsunekawa.
We observe no Reply Brief is of record to rebut the Examiner’s
findings and responses to Appellant’s arguments about the disputed features.
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive rebuttal evidence or argument to
persuade us otherwise, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying
reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference. Consequently, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1–20.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 9 102(a)(2) Rümmeli 1, 2, 6, 9
Appeal 2019-005235
Application 14/059,532

18

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

3, 11 103 Rümmeli,
Demicco
3, 11
7 103 Rümmeli, Carr 7
8, 10 103 Rümmeli, Brunner 8, 10
4, 5, 12, 14,
17, 18
103 Rümmeli,
Tsunekawa
4, 5, 12, 14,
17, 18

13 103 Rümmeli,
Tsunekawa,
Demicco
13
19 103 Rümmeli,
Tsunekawa, Carr
19
20 103 Rümmeli,
Tsunekawa,
Brunner
20
Overall
Outcome
1–20