3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 11, 2020

2019002452 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 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.
14/406,796 12/10/2014 Douglas B. Gundel 70025US004 7203
32692 7590 06/11/2020
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
EXAMINER
SOLTANZADEH, MARYAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2020 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, ZULFIQAR A. KHAN, and
ALEXANDER W. BARR
____________________

Appeal 2019-002452
Application 14/406,796
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 11–14, 16–19, and 24–26. Appellant has canceled claims 3–10,
15, 20–23, and 27–30. See Amdt 3–6 (filed Oct. 17, 2017). We have
jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies 3M
Company and its affiliate 3M Innovative Properties Company as the real
parties in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002452
Application 14/406,796

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to a
wireless connector comprising a first and second communication device and
a telescopic waveguide disposed between the first and second
communication devices. Spec. 1. A waveguide may be used to receive a
signal emitted from a first communication device, guide the received signal
from a first end of the waveguide to an opposite second end, and transmit the
guided signal from the second end to the second communication device.
Spec. 1. As described in the Specification, a telescopic waveguide may be
expanded (or contracted) to increase (or decrease) the distance between the
first and second communication devices. Spec. 7.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A wireless connector comprising:
a first communication device configured to emit a
modulated signal;
a second communication device configured to receive the
emitted modulated signal; and
a telescopic waveguide disposed between the first and
second communication devices and configured to wirelessly
receive the emitted modulated signal from a first end of the
telescopic waveguide, guide the received signal from the first end
to an opposite second end of the telescopic waveguide, and
wirelessly transmit the guided signal from the second end to the
second communication device, the telescopic waveguide being
centered on an axis and comprising a plurality of guiding
sections, each guiding section being centered on the axis and
configured to slide within or over an adjacent guiding section
inwardly to reduce a length of the telescopic waveguide and
outwardly to increase the length of the telescopic waveguide,
Appeal 2019-002452
Application 14/406,796

3
wherein the first and second communication devices are coupled
through at least one wired connection via an uninterrupted path
of conductive material between, and in physical contact with, the
first and second communication devices.

The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1, 2, 11–14, 16, 18, and 24–26 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 102(b) as being anticipated by Hardacker et al. (US 2007/0270017 A1;
Nov. 22, 2007) (“Hardacker”).2 Final Act. 2–9.
2. Claim 17 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hardacker and Ober et al. (US 2,802,994; Aug. 13,
1957) (“Ober”). Final Act. 9–10.
3. Claim 19 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hardacker and Bartholomä et al. (US 6,394,690 B1;
May 28, 2002) (“Bartholomä”). Final Act. 10–12.

ANALYSIS3
Rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
a. Claims 1, 2, 11–14, 16, and 18
The Examiner finds Hardacker anticipates, inter alia, claim 1. Final
Act. 2–3. We begin our analysis with a brief review of Hardacker.

2 We note that the Examiner correctly states the application is being “under
the pre-AIA first to invent provisions,” but refers to the AIA version of
§ 102 in the statement of rejection. See Final Act. 2. We treat the
misstatement as a harmless typographical error and refer to the pre-AIA
version of § 102 herein.
3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
July 12, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed January 28, 2019
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed November 28, 2018 (“Ans.”);
Appeal 2019-002452
Application 14/406,796

4
Hardacker is directed to “connectors and other devices for use in the
transmission of millimeter wave RF signals.” Hardacker ¶ 1. Hardacker
describes the connectors or housings as comprising “metallized, grounded
shells or chambers having antenna pairs that are embedded therein.”
Hardacker ¶ 7. Figure 1A of Hardacker is illustrative and is reproduced
below:

Figure 1A of Hardacker shows a perspective view of the connector assembly
components. Hardacker ¶¶ 17, 30. As shown, Hardacker illustrates and
describes a first housing (103) and a second housing (105). Hardacker ¶ 30.
First housing (103) comprises a first plurality of chambers (107), wherein
each chamber may be defined by a plurality of inner walls (111) and outer
walls (113). Hardacker ¶ 30. Second housing (105) also comprises a
plurality of chambers (117), wherein each chamber (117) may be defined by
a plurality of inner walls (119). Hardacker ¶ 32. Hardacker describes each

and the Final Office Action, mailed January 23, 2018 (“Final Act.”), from
which this Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2019-002452
Application 14/406,796

5
chamber (117) is adapted to receive a projection (109) (defined by outer
walls (113)) of first housing (103). Hardacker ¶ 32.
Hardacker further describes that each interior wall (119) of the second
housing (105) “is constructed of a conductive material, such as aluminum,
which is electrically connected to ground.” Hardacker ¶ 32. Further,
Hardacker describes that outer walls (113) of first housing (103) “could be
constructed of the conductive material, or the entire chamber body could be
constructed of the conductive material.” Hardacker ¶ 30.
Figure 1B of Hardacker is also illustrative and is reproduced below:

Figure 1B of Hardacker illustrates a view of the connector assembly when
the first and second housings are mated. Hardacker ¶ 18. As shown, a
plurality of first semiconductor devices (115) are embedded in first housing
(103). Hardacker ¶ 31. Additionally, a second plurality of semiconductor
devices (121) are embedded in second housing (105). Hardacker ¶ 32.
Hardacker further describes the semiconductor devices (115, 121) comprise
an antenna for communication at a frequency in the millimeter wave
spectrum of frequencies. Hardacker ¶¶ 31–32.
Appeal 2019-002452
Application 14/406,796

6
When the housings are attached, the first and second pluralities
of chambers 107, 117 are aligned with one another thereby in
effect forming a plurality of unified, metallized chambers or
shells which act as waveguides for millimeter wave frequency
signals (such as, for example, 60 GHz band signals) that can
travel between the antenna pairs. Thus the plurality of antennas
in the first housing 103 is adapted to communicate with the
plurality of antennas in the second housing 105 via wireless
signals that travel in a plurality of paths that are substantially
parallel, thus providing ultra-high bandwidth data transmission
capabilities.
Hardacker ¶ 34.
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Hardacker discloses
“first and second communication devices are coupled through at least one
wired connection via an uninterrupted path of conductive material between,
and in physical contact with, the first and second communication devices,”
as recited in claim 1 (and commensurately recited in independent claim 2).
Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 1.4 In particular, Appellant argues Hardacker
merely discloses that when the mating chambers (see Figs. 1A and 1B, (107)
and (117)) are attached, the structure acts a waveguide between
semiconductor devices (115) and (121). Appeal Br. 5. However, Appellant
argues Hardacker fails to disclose that the semiconductor devices (115) and
(121) are coupled through at least one wired connection via an uninterrupted
path of conductive material. Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 1. Moreover,
Appellant asserts that the first and second semiconductor devices in
Hardacker “are already wirelessly connected to each other and, as such,

4 The Reply Brief does not contain page numbers. For references purposes
herein, we treat the page of the Reply Brief beginning with “REMARKS” as
page 1.
Appeal 2019-002452
Application 14/406,796

7
there would have been no reason to provide a wired connection.”5 Appeal
Br. 5. Further, Appellant asserts that the regions of mating or attachment
between chambers (107) and (117) form an interruption in the conductive
path. Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 1 (asserting the Examiner does not
give patentable weight to the expression “uninterrupted path”).
Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the Examiner explains that
Hardacker discloses the first device and second device are coupled through
at least one wired connection via an uninterrupted path of conductive
material. Ans. 15. In particular, the Examiner finds first semiconductor
device (115) is connected to first housing (103) and second semiconductor
device (121) is connected to second housing (105) and when the first and
second housings ((103) and (105)) are mated, chambers (107) and (117) are
“aligned and form a unified metallized grounded shell,” thus “serving as a
wire connecting the two devices via an uninterrupted path of conductive
material between the two devices.” Ans. 15. The Examiner further notes
that, as recited, claim 1 (or claim 2) does not require any signaling be
present on the wired connection between the first and second devices.
Ans. 17. Thus, when the first and second housings ((103) and (105)) of
Hardacker are mated, the first and second semiconductor devices ((115) and
(121)) are coupled through a wired connection (i.e., a ground connection)
via an uninterrupted path of conductive material. Ans. 17.

5 To the extent that Appellant asserts there is no reason to have both a
wireless and wired connection between two devices, we note that this is the
same configuration of Appellant’s claim—namely, two communication
devices wirelessly connected to each other and additionally comprising a
wired connection.
Appeal 2019-002452
Application 14/406,796

8
In the Reply Brief, Appellant acknowledges that “there may be
multiple ground connections, such as the ground for [(first semiconductor)]
device 115 and the ground for [(second semiconductor)] device 121, [but
that] does not necessarily mean that the multiple grounds are connected to
each other via a wire, let alone a wire that is connected ‘via an uninterrupted
path of conductive material between.’” Reply Br. 1. Rather, Appellant
asserts that multiple grounds merely mean that the grounds of the first and
second semiconductor devices are at zero potential. Reply Br. 1.
We disagree with Appellant. As Appellant acknowledges, Hardacker
discloses each semiconductor device ((115) and (121)) has a ground
connection. See Reply Br. 1. Further, Hardacker discloses the outer walls
(113) of the first housing (103) and the walls (119) of the second housing
(105) may be constructed from a conductive material and electrically
connected to ground. Hardacker ¶¶ 30, 32. Thus, when the two housings
((103) and (105)) are mated, the ground connections of the outer walls (113)
of the first housing (103), the walls (119) of the second housing (105), the
first semiconductor device (115) and the second semiconductor device (121)
are all coupled together.
Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the claims do not require “a wire”
to connect the grounds together, but rather first and second communication
devices are coupled through at least “a wired connection.” Compare Reply
Br. 1, with claim 1. As the Examiner explains, the claims do not require any
specific shape or signaling of the wired connection. Ans. 15, 17. In
addition, we note the Specification defines a wired connection as one that
“requires an uninterrupted path of conductive material between two
communication devices, where the path is in physical contact with the two
Appeal 2019-002452
Application 14/406,796

9
communication devices.” Spec. 7 (emphases added). Contrary to
Appellant’s arguments (see Appeal Br. 5), we do not find that the path of
conductive material is interrupted just because two structures are mated to
each other. In addition, we note the Specification does not limit the term
“uninterrupted.”
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 2, which recites commensurate limitations and for which
Appellant advances similar arguments. See Appeal Br. 4–6. In addition, we
also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11–14, 16, and 18, which
depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not argued separately. See
Appeal Br. 6; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

b. Claims 24–26
Independent claim 24 is directed to a wireless communication system
comprising, inter alia, a plurality of waveguides wherein “at least one
waveguide in the plurality of waveguides compris[es] a pair of opposing first
slots defined in opposing walls of the waveguide at the first end of the
waveguide.”
Appellant asserts that Hardacker, as relied on by the Examiner fails to
disclose a slot in any of the walls of the chamber (i.e., waveguide). Appeal
Br. 6; Reply Br. 1–2. In addition, to the extent the Examiner suggests the
portion of Hardacker’s waveguide that is inserted into its mating half
discloses the claimed slots, Appellant argues that this would still not disclose
Appeal 2019-002452
Application 14/406,796

10
a pair of opposing first slots defined in opposing walls of the waveguide at
the first end of the waveguide. Reply Br. 1–2 (responding to Ans. 18–19).
In response, the Examiner relies on the same figures of Hardacker
(i.e., Figs. 1A and 1B) as illustrating the claimed pair of opposing slots
defined in opposing walls of the waveguide. Ans. 18. The Examiner
explains “the housing 103 has a plurality of projections that move like
fingers through a matching set of slots with a matching plurality of antennas
disposed in the bottom of the slots.” Ans. 19.
As recited in claim 24, a plurality of communication devices are
disposed on a substrate and “a portion of the first substrate being slidably
inserted into the first slots; wherein the waveguides each define a cavity
along a length of the waveguide.” We agree with Appellant that Hardacker,
as relied on by the Examiner, fails to disclose the claimed pair of opposing
slots defined in opposing walls of the waveguide. In addition, the Examiner
does not provide persuasive evidence or technical reasoning that although
Hardacker discloses a communication device is embedded in the housing
and is partially disposed within the chamber (see, e.g., Hardacker ¶ 31), that
the device is slidably inserted into slots in the chamber.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 24. For similar reasons we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 25 and 26, which depend therefrom.

Rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 17 and 19 depend from independent claim 1. Appellant relies
on the arguments advanced with respect to claim 1 regarding claims 17 and
Appeal 2019-002452
Application 14/406,796

11
19. Appeal Br. 6. Thus, for similar reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error and sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 17 and 19.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 11–14, 16,
and 18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 24–26 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 17 and 19 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 11–14,
16, 18, 24–
26
102(b) Hardacker 1, 2, 11–
14, 16, 18
24–26
17 103(a) Hardacker, Ober 17
19 103(a) Hardacker,
Bartholomä
19
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 11–
14, 16–19
24–26
Appeal 2019-002452
Application 14/406,796

12

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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED IN PART