CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2020

2019006489 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 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.
14/731,857 06/05/2015 Robert Elvin Barnette JR. HI13-012A 1453
21495 7590 10/28/2020
CORNING INCORPORATED
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT, SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
KIANNI, KAVEH C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2020 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):
usdocket@corning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT ELVIN BARNETTE JR. and
HIEU VINH TRAN
____________________

Appeal 2019-006489
Application 14/731,857
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action, (mailed December 28, 2017, (“Final
Act.”)), rejecting claims 1–6, 9–13, 16–20, 22, and 27–37. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Corning Optical Communications
LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-006489
Application 14/731,857

2
The invention relates to “fiber optic multiports comprising ports
connected to the distal ends of respective extensions, and the respective
proximal ends of the extensions are attached to a housing.” Appeal Br. 8.
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter claimed and is reproduced below from
the Appeal Brief, Claims Appendix:
1. A fiber optic multiport, comprising:

a housing, wherein the housing comprises an extension
organizer comprising a wall with a plurality of openings, and
the housing defines an enclosure;

a plurality of optical fibers extending into the enclosure;

extensions having a proximal end attached to the
plurality of openings of the extension organizer of the housing,
the extensions projecting away from a face of the housing,
wherein the extensions support sub-sets of the plurality of
optical fibers; and

ports connected to distal ends of the extensions, wherein
an area of the face of the housing is less than a net area of
forward end-faces of the ports.

Independent claims 9 and 16 recite a fiber optic multiport similar to
claim 1 but include additional features.
Appellant requests review of the following rejections:
I. Claims 1–6, 9–13, 16–20, 22, and 27–37 rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Parikh (US 2009/0060421 A1;
published March 5, 2009).

II. Claims 1–6, 9–13, 16–20, 22, 27, 28 and 33–37 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Nhep (US 2010/0092136 A1;
published April 15, 2010).
Appeal 2019-006489
Application 14/731,857

3
For Rejections I and II, Appellant presents arguments for independent
claims 1, 9, and 16. See generally Appeal Br. In addition, for Rejection I,
Appellant presents separate arguments for dependent claim 29. Id. We
select claim 1 as representative of the subject matter claimed. We address
claims 9, 16, and 29 separately. Claims 2–6, 10–13, 16–20, 22, 27, 28, and
30–37 stand or fall with their respective independent claim.

OPINION
Rejection I: 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) based on Parikh
After review of the respective positions that Appellant presents in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner presents in the Final Office
Action and the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6,
9–13, 16–20, 22, and 27–37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) essentially for the
reasons the Examiner presents. We add the following.
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action for a complete
statement of the rejection of claims 1, 9, 16, and 29. Final Act. 3–7.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites the use of ports connected to distal ends of extensions.
The Examiner finds that Parikh teaches a fiber optic multi-port
comprising ports 30. Final Act. 5; see also Parikh Fig. 9.
Appellant disputes that Parikh’s elements 30 are ports as required by
the subject matter of claim 1 because “[i]n its plain meaning, a ‘port’
receives a structure or device.” Appeal Br. 26. According to Appellant,
Parikh’s elements 30 do not receive a structure or device but instead are
plugged in. Appeal Br. 27; see also Parikh ¶ 102. Appellant tacitly
acknowledges that claim 1 does not recite the ports as receiving any
Appeal 2019-006489
Application 14/731,857

4
structure or device. However, Appellant contends that “[i]t is beyond refute
that the present application requires the ports of the fiber optic multiports to
receive a connector of a branching cable as discussed in the present
specification and well-known to one skilled in the art for fiber-to-the-home
applications.” Appeal Br. 26–27. In essence, Appellant contends that the
claimed “port” defines exclusively a female connector. In support of these
contentions, Appellant directs attention to paragraphs 3 (“The ports may be
used for mating with connectors attached to branching cables such as for
'fiber-to-the-home' applications”) and 5 (“A need exists for a multiport that
conveniently fits in tight or unusually-arranged storage spaces, while
providing the functionality of conventional multiports and/or improving
thereupon by allowing faster and easier access to the ports for connections of
branching cables”) of the Specification. Id. at 26.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation. “[D]uring examination proceedings,
claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
[S]pecification.” In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)); see
also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(explaining that the scope of the claims in patent applications is not
determined solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims
their broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art); and Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he specification ‘is always
highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive;
Appeal 2019-006489
Application 14/731,857

5
it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’”) (citation
omitted). In general,
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the [Appellant’s] [S]pecification.

In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Thus, the terms in the appealed claims must be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation including the ordinary meaning unless another
meaning is intended by Appellant as established in the written description of
their Specification. See, e.g., In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321–22 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
When the Specification does not contain an express definition, a
reasonable, supported interpretation of the appealed claims that differs from
that urged by applicants can be used to determine the patentability of the
claims. Morris, 127 F.3d at 1055–56 (“Absent an express definition in their
specification, the fact that appellants can point to definitions or usages that
conform to their interpretation does not make the PTO’s definition
unreasonable when the PTO can point to other sources that support its
interpretation.”). Indeed, “[i]t is the applicants’ burden to precisely define
the invention, not the PTO’s. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 [statute omitted].”
Morris, 127 F.3d at 1055–56.
After reviewing the portions of the Specification the Appellant
highlights, we agree with the Examiner that the Specification does not
provides a specific or special definition of “port.” Ans. 5. We first note that
Appeal 2019-006489
Application 14/731,857

6
the cited portions of the Specification merely state that “[t]he ports may be
used for mating with connectors attached to branching cables” and that there
be a “faster and easier access to the ports for connections of branching
cables.” Spec. ¶¶ 3, 5. These portions of the Specification do not expressly
limit “port” to any specific type of connector. Instead, these portions recite
the need to establish access using the ports.
Moreover, common definitions of port in this art include “a hardware
interface by which a computer is connected to another device (such as a
printer, a mouse, or another computer) broadly” 2 and “the circuit, outlet, etc.
which serves as a connection between a computer and its peripheral.”3
Consistent with the cited portions of the Specification, neither of these
definitions limit “port” to a female connector.
Therefore, Appellant has failed to explain persuasively why one
skilled in the art would not reasonably understand “port” to include both
male and female connectors. Ans. 6.
Appellant argues that Parikh’s orifice plate 420 does not disclose or
teach the claim 1 limitation “extensions having a proximal end attached to
the plurality of openings of the extension organizer of the housing, the
extensions projecting away from a face of the housing.” Appeal Br. 31.
According to Appellant, the Examiner erroneously misinterpreted the orifice
plate 420 as a face of a housing because the orifice plate 420 is not a
housing. Id. at 30.

2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/port (last accessed
9/29/2020).
3 https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/port (last accessed
9/29/2020).
Appeal 2019-006489
Application 14/731,857

7
Appellant’s arguments lack persuasive merit. Appellant’s arguments
misapprehends the Examiner’s rejection. As the Examiner explains in the
Final Office Action, the structure of Parikh that corresponds to the claimed
housing structure comprises the unibody housing 200 and the orifice plate
420. Final Act. 4–5; see also Parikh, ¶ 73, and Figs. 8–12. Thus, contrary to
Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner does not interpret orifice plate 420 as
the housing structure. Instead, the Examiner interprets orifice plate 420 as
part of the housing structure. This interpretation is reasonable given that
orifice 420 has a latch 455 to secure the orifice plate 420 to the unibody
housing 200. Parikh ¶ 73. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments do not address
the rejection the Examiner presents and cannot demonstrate reversible error
in the rejection.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
improperly relied on two mutually exclusive embodiments taught by Parikh,
the orifice plate 420 and the organizer 520, in Figures 8–12 in rejecting
independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 31–32. As the Examiner explains in the
Answer, orifice plate 420 by itself teaches a wall comprising an extension
organizer feature. Ans. 9. The Examiner further explains that the reference
to organizer 520 was meant to be another interpretation of the embodiments
shown in Parikh Figures 10–12 which can also anticipate the claimed
invention. Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellant does not address and, therefore,
does not show error in the Examiner’s explanation.
Claim 9
Appellant relies on arguments presented when discussing claim 1 to
address (1) the meaning of “ports” and (2) the extension organizer for claim
9. Appeal Br. 33–34. We refer to our previous discussion of these
Appeal 2019-006489
Application 14/731,857

8
arguments and maintain our determination that they are unpersuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation for the reasons
discussed above. We address additional arguments regarding this claim
below.
Appellant argues that Parikh does not teach or disclose “one or more
guides in the enclosure, wherein slack of the plurality of optical fibers is
routed by the one or more guides.” Id. at 34. According to Appellant,
Parikh does not discuss slack of optical fiber within the device, and does not
disclose one or more guides for routing slack. Id. at 36.
Appellant’s arguments lack persuasive merit. We first note that the
Examiner relies on Parikh’s Figures 12 and 13 to address the limitation of
providing slack for the optical fibers. Final Act. 5. Thus, Appellant’s
arguments do not address the rejection the Examiner presents.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that Parikh expressly states
that there is no slack within the multi-fiber organizer because Parikh
discloses that “[t]he optical fibers can be drawn taut to straighten and align
the fibers inside the passage of the unibody housing.” Reply Br. 10; see also
Parikh ¶ 151. However, the cited portion of Parikh falls short of requiring
the alleged tautness of the optical fibers because it merely teaches that the
optical fibers can be drawn taut and not that they must be drawn taut.
Indeed, this disclosure suggests that the fibers have slack, at a minimum,
before they are drawn taunt. Moreover, Parikh is replete with Figures that
teach providing slack to fibers. See, e.g., Parikh Figures 17–19.

Appeal 2019-006489
Application 14/731,857

9
Claim 16
Appellant relies on arguments presented when discussing claim 1 to
address (1) the meaning of “ports” and (2) the extension organizer for claim
16. Appeal Br. 37. We again refer to our previous discussion of these
arguments and maintain our determination that they are unpersuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation. We address
additional arguments regarding this claim below.
Independent claim 16 recites a fiber optic multiport comprising a
housing that seals off an enclosure containing optical fibers therein from the
environment, where the housing comprises a first piece and a second piece.
Appellant argues that the Examiner does not state which components
in Parikh’s fiber optic multiport teach the first piece and second piece recited
by independent claim 16. Id.
This argument is unpersuasive. In the Final Action, the Examiner
finds that Parikh teaches a housing structure comprising two pieces, a
locking structure 420 and a unibody 200, that seals off the enclosure from
the environment. Final Act. 6; see also Parikh ¶¶ 73, 146. We note that the
arrangement the Examiner relies upon is best illustrated in Parikh’s Figure 3
with the single fiber device 220 (which would be replaced with a multi-fiber
orifice plate 420) and unibody housing 200. The Examiner finds that this
arrangement seals off the enclosure from the environment. Final Act. 6.
Appellant’s arguments do not address or challenge these findings by
the Examiner. Appellant does not explain adequately why the unibody 200
and orifice plate 420 does not seal off an enclosure containing optical fibers
therein from the environment. Therefore, Appellant fails to identify
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation.
Appeal 2019-006489
Application 14/731,857

10
Claim 29
Appellant argues that the Examiner designated claim 29 allowable and
is now rejecting it. Appeal Br. 38.
After review of the record, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
argument because the record supports the Examiner’s position that claim 29
was erroneously designated as an objected claim. Ans. 14–15. In fact, the
Examiner’s discussion of the rejection includes claim 29 twice among the
claims rejected as anticipated by Parikh. Final Act. 5. Further, Appellant’s
argument is untimely because Appellant did not take steps to seek
clarification of claim 29’s status until the filing of the Appeal Brief.
Accordingly, we treat claim 29 as properly rejected and before us for
consideration on appeal.
With respect to claim 29, Appellant further argues that Parikh does
not teach the claimed crimps but instead teaches protective tubing 580, 585
that one skilled in the art would have understood that would not be crimped
since the optical fiber is disposed therein, and crimping the protective tube
could cause damage to the optical fiber therein or excess optical attenuation
for the optical signal carried by the optical fiber. Appeal Br. 38–39.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error. In the Answer,
the Examiner points to element 266 (best seen in Figure 4) and 645 (best
seen in Figure 18), which are used to prevent a cable from moving or
tangling, to meet the claimed limitation. Ans. 14; see also Parikh ¶¶ 68,
101. In their Reply Brief, Appellant does not address and, therefore, does
not show error in the Examiner’s explanation.
Appeal 2019-006489
Application 14/731,857

11
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 9–13,
16–20, 22, and 27–37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) for the reasons the
Examiner presents and we give above.
Rejection II: 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) based on Nhep
After review of the respective positions that Appellant presents in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner presents in the Final Office
Action and the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6,
27, 28, 33, 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) for essentially for the reasons the
Examiner presents but reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9–13, 16–
20, 22, 31, 34, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) for the reasons
Appellant presents. We add the following.
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action for a complete
statement of the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 16. Final Act. 7–9.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites the use of ports connected to distal ends of extensions.
The Examiner finds that Nhep teaches a fiber optic multi-port
comprising ports 22. Final Act. 8; see also Nhep Figure 1.
Appellant presents arguments concerning the meaning of “ports” in
claim 1 that are substantially similar to the arguments presented in the
anticipation rejection over Parikh. Appeal Br. 43–46. For the reasons set
forth above, we determine that Appellant’s arguments do not identify
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation over Nhep.
Appellant fails to explain persuasively why one skilled in the art would not
reasonably understand “port,” as used in the claims, to include both male
and female connectors and not to be limited to female connectors. Ans. 16–
17.
Appeal 2019-006489
Application 14/731,857

12
Appellant argues that the Examiner does not address the feature of an
extension organizer “comprising a wall with a plurality of openings” as
recited by independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 46.
Appellant’s arguments lack persuasive merit. Appellant’s arguments
misapprehends the rejection the Examiner presents. In the Final Office
Action, the Examiner relies on Nhep’s element 42 to meet the claimed
extension organizer. Final Act. 8; see also Nhep Fig. 14. Nhep describes a
fanout assembly body 42 that provides structure for mounting to multi-fiber
cable 12, which is a plurality of individual optical fibers 30, and output
cables 14. Nhep ¶¶ 36–37, and Fig. 5. As the Examiner explains in the
Answer, body 42 includes a component 50 that provides a wall with a
plurality of openings 102. Ans. 17; see also Nhep ¶¶ 37, 40, Figs. 7, 8.
Thus, the Examiner addresses the feature of an extension organizer
“comprising a wall with a plurality of openings.” In their Reply Brief,
Appellant does not address and, therefore, does not show error in the
Examiner's explanation.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 27,
28, 33, 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) for the reasons the Examiner presents
and we give above.
Claim 9
Appellant argues that Nhep does not teach, disclose or otherwise
reasonably suggest “one or more guides in the enclosure, wherein slack of
the plurality of optical fibers is routed by the one or more guides.” Appeal
Br. 48. According to Appellant, Nhep’s Figure 5 shows fibers 30 are taut
within the fanout 16. Id.
Appeal 2019-006489
Application 14/731,857

13
Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation for this claim.
The premise of the Examiner’s rejection is that Nhep’s Figure 5
shows the fibers loosely and freely arranged in the housing as they are
routed from one end of the housing to the other by guides. Final Act. 8;
Ans. 18–19. However, the Examiner directs us to no portion of Nhep that
supports this finding. At best, the Examiner’s finding is speculative.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9–13, 31,
34, 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) for the reasons Appellant presents and
we give above.
Claim 16
Independent claim 16 recites a fiber optic multiport comprising a
housing that seals off an enclosure containing optical fibers therein from the
environment, where the housing comprises a first piece and a second piece.
Appellant argues that that Nhep does not disclose any features of the
upper housing portion 130 or the lower housing portion 120 of the body that
are capable of sealing the fanout 16 from the environment as claimed.
Appeal Br. 50.
Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation for this claim.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that Nhep teaches a first piece
120 and a second piece 130 that forms a housing structure that seals off an
enclosure from the environment. Final Act. 8; see also Nhep Figs. 5, 8. In
the Answer, the Examiner explains that, when read in light of the
Specification, the term “sealed off” does not necessarily mean completely
sealed from the environment. Ans. 19. The Examiner contends that
Appeal 2019-006489
Application 14/731,857

14
paragraph 36 of the Specification discloses that the housing 212 seals off the
enclosure 224 from the environment (see Application Figure 5) while
paragraph 45 states that “[i]n some embodiments, the enclosure 224, formed
by the housing 212, is completely sealed off from the outer environment by
interlocking structure of the housing 212.” Id. According to the Examiner,
these disclosures show a distinction between “sealed” and “completely
sealed.” Id.
The Examiner’s attempt to distinguish between the terms “sealed “
and “completely sealed” fails to account for the term “off” that is used to
modify the word “seal.” The ordinary meaning of “seal off” is “to close
completely.”4 Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s contention, there appears to
be essentially no difference between the meanings of the terms. The
Examiner’s response also fails to address adequately Appellant’s arguments
because the Examiner directs us to no portion of Nhep that supports the
finding that interlocked pieces 120 and 130 seal off the enclosure of the
housing.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16–20,
22, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) for the reasons Appellant presents
and we give above.

DECISION SUMMARY
Because one of the rejections reaching all the claims is affirmed, our
decision is an affirmance.

4 https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/seal-off (last
accessed October 14, 2020).
Appeal 2019-006489
Application 14/731,857

15
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 9–13,
16–20, 22,
27–37
102(a)(2) Parikh 1–6, 9–13,
16–20, 22,
27–37

1–6, 9–13,
16–20, 22,
27, 28, 33–37
102(a)(2) Nhep 1–6, 27,
28, 33, 35
9–13,
16–20,
22, 31,
34, 36, 37
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 9–13,
16–20, 22,
27–37

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