Ex Parte Cases et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2018

12628245 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/628,245 12/01/2009
60501 7590 06/29/2018
LENOVO COMPANY (LENOVO-KLS)
c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP
301 Congress Avenue
Suite 1350
AUSTIN, TX 78701
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Moises Cases
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
XRPS920090063US 1 5525
EXAMINER
MAYO III, WILLIAM H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2847
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2018 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):
office@klspatents.com
kate@klspatents.com
hanna@klspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOISES CASES, VINH B. LU, and
BHYRA V M. MUTNURY
Appeal2017-011323
Application 12/628,245 1
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Miracle et al. 2 in view of O'Connor. 3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Lenovo Enterprise
Solutions (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Appeal Brief dated April 10, 2017 ("App. Br."), at
2.
2 US 3,439,111, issued April 15, 1969 ("Miracle").
3 US 4,737,598, issued April 12, 1988 ("O'Connor").
Appeal2017-011323
Application 12/628,245
We REVERSE.
The claims on appeal are directed to a method of manufacturing a cable for
high speed data communications (independent claim 1 ), a cable for high speed data
communications (independent claim 8), and a method of transmitting a signal on a
cable for high speed data communications (independent claim 15).
Appellants' Figure 3, reproduced below, illustrates a high speed data
communications cable according to the Appellants' invention. Spec. 5.
l'2f
\
\
\
Appellants' Figure 3 is a perspective view of a high speed data
communications cable according to the Appellants' invention.
Cable 301 includes first inner conductor 308 enclosed by first dielectric
layer 312 and second inner conductor 306 enclosed by second dielectric layer 314,
2
Appeal2017-011323
Application 12/628,245
wherein the longitudinal axis of first inner conductor 308 is substantially parallel to
the longitudinal axis of second inner conductor 306. Spec. 5. Conductive shield
302 is wrapped around the first and second inner conductors to create overlap 304
along the longitudinal axis of cable 301. Spec. 6. The overlap is aligned with low
current plane 320, wherein low current plane 320 is substantially parallel to and
substantially equidistant from the first and second inner conductors. Spec. 6.
Moreover, the center of the overlap is equidistant to the centers of both the first
and second inner conductors for the length of the shield. See Spec. 6; Fig. 3.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief. The limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A method of manufacturing a cable for high speed data
communications, the method comprising:
providing a first inner conductor enclosed by a first dielectric
layer and a second inner conductor enclosed by a second dielectric
layer, the first inner conductor substantially parallel to the second
inner conductor and to a longitudinal axis; and
wrapping a conductive shield around the first and second inner
conductors, including overlapping the conductive shield along and
only about the longitudinal axis, wherein the overlap is aligned with a
low current plane, the low current plane substantially parallel to the
first and second inner conductors, substantially equidistant from the
first and second inner conductors, and substantially orthogonal to a
plane including the first and second inner conductors, wherein for the
length of the shield, within every plane that is perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the overlap, the longitudinal axis of the first inner
conductor, and the longitudinal axis of the second inner conductor:
the center of the overlap is equidistance to the center of first inner
conductor and the center of the second inner conductor, thereby
tuning a stopband with the overlap to filter frequencies at a desired
center frequency,
wherein:
3
Appeal2017-011323
Application 12/628,245
the first and second inner conductors are substantially the
same length;
providing the first and second inner conductors further
comprises aligning corresponding ends of the first and second
inner conductors; and
wrapping a conductive shield further comprises wrapping
a plurality of conductive shields around the first and second
inner conductors, including overlapping each of the conductive
shields along and about the longitudinal axis, wherein the
overlap of the conductive shields is aligned with the low current
plane and wherein the conductive shields are wrapped along the
first and second inner conductors iteratively beginning at one
end of the first and second inner conductors and ending at the
other end of the first and second inner conductors, and
wherein the overlap produces a stopband filter that filters
frequencies in a stopband, the stopband including frequencies greater
than frequencies of signals to be transmitted along the first and second
inner conductors and including frequencies greater than frequencies in
the range of 5-10 gigahertz.
App. Br. 15-16.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Miracle discloses a cable comprising first inner
conductor 15 and second inner conductor 17 enclosed by dielectric layer 25,
wherein the first and second inner conductors are parallel to each other and a
longitudinal axis. Final Act. 3. 4 The Examiner finds Miracle discloses that
conductive shield 21 is wrapped around the first and second inner conductors and
forms overlap 33, wherein the overlap is substantially parallel to the first and
second inner conductors. Final Act. 3; see also Miracle Figs. 1, 2.
4 Final Office Action dated November 3, 2016.
4
Appeal2017-011323
Application 12/628,245
The Examiner finds Miracle does not disclose that the center of overlap 33 is
equidistant to the centers of the first and second inner conductors as claimed. Final
Act. 8. Therefore, the Examiner turns to O'Connor.
The Examiner finds O'Connor discloses a cable comprising first and second
inner conductors 28, each enclosed by dielectric layer 29. The Examiner finds
O'Connor discloses that conductive shield 31 is wrapped around the first and
second inner conductors and forms an overlap (i.e., defined by folded layers 33 and
34), wherein the center of the overlap is equidistant to the centers of both the first
and second inner conductors. Final Act. 8-9; see also O'Connor Fig. 2. Based on
the teachings in O'Connor, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the center of overlap 33 in
Miracle's shield 21 equidistant to the centers of first inner conductor 15 and second
inner conductor 17, as claimed, to improve the shielding electrical characteristics
of Miracle's cable. Final Act. 9.
The Appellants argue that the center of the overlap in O'Connor's cable
cannot be equidistant to the centers of both the first and second inner conductors
for the length of the shield as claimed because the conductors are twisted around
one another and thus do not have a longitudinal axis. App. Br. 10-11; see also
Reply Br. 14 (contending that O'Connor's twisted conductors "eliminate[] the
ability of the center of an overlap being equidistant to the center of a first and
second inner conductor as claimed"). 5
In response, the Examiner finds that O'Connor teaches:
the center of the overlap being equidistance to the center of the first
conductor and the center of the second inner conductor. Specifically,
O'Connor teaches that the shielding layer may be ... longitudinally
wrapped, thereby suggesting that the overlap extends ...
5 Reply Brief dated September 5, 2017.
5
Appeal2017-011323
Application 12/628,245
longitudinally to the longitudinal axis ensuring electrical continuity
around the conductors and drain wire (Col 4, lines 35-40).
Ans. 7. 6
The Examiner's response does not address the claim language at issue. We
recognize that O'Connor's shield 31 is "arranged longitudinally ... of the
conductor pair [26, 28]"7 and the overlap extends along the longitudinal axis of the
cable. Nonetheless, claim 1 recites:
wherein/or the length of the shield, within every plane that is
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the overlap, the longitudinal
axis of the first inner conductor, and the longitudinal axis of the
second inner conductor: the center of the overlap is equidistance to
the center of first inner conductor and the center of the second inner
d t [8] con uc or ....
App. Br. 15 (emphasis added).
O'Connor discloses:
[In] FIG. 2 there is shown a conventional cable construction including
a pair of conductors 26 and 27 each of which is formed by a
multistrand conductive wire 28 and an outer insulating layer 29. The
conductors 26 and 27 are twisted around one another as previously
described in a conventional cabling process. In addition, a multistrand
ground wire is added to the conductor pair and indicated at 30. The
cable comprising the conductors 26, 27 and the wire 30 is wrapped by
a tape formed from a laminate of a foil layer 31 and an insulating
dielectric layer 32.
O'Connor, col. 4, 11. 20-30 (bold omitted; italics added).
Because the first and second conductors are twisted around one another in
O'Connor, the first and second conductors do not each have a longitudinal axis as
claimed. Therefore, 0 'Connor cannot teach that:
6 Examiner's Answer dated July 3, 2017.
7 O'Connor, col. 4, 11. 35--40.
8 Independent claims 8 and 15 recite the same language. See App. Br. 17, 19.
6
Appeal2017-011323
Application 12/628,245
for the length of the shield, within every plane that is perpendicular to
the longitudinal axis of the overlap, the longitudinal axis of the first
inner conductor, and the longitudinal axis of the second inner
conductor: the center of the overlap is equidistance to the center of
first inner conductor and the center of the second inner conductor [as
claimed].
App. Br. 15. For that reason, the§ 103(a) rejection on appeal is not sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
7