Ex Parte Farkas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2018

14265556 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/265,556 04/30/2014
33438 7590 10/31/2018
TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sandor Farkas
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.
DC-103036.01 3453
EXAMINER
PAGHADAL, PARESH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2847
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2018 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
tmunoz@tcciplaw.com
heather@tcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANDOR FARKAS, BHYRA V M. MUTNURY, and
XINYUNGUO
Appeal2018-000909 1
Application 14/265,556
Technology Center 2800
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-12. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Dell Products L.P., which, according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Br. 1.
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed April 30, 2014
("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated October 5, 2016 ("Final Act."), the
Appeal Brief filed April 6, 2017 ("Br."), and the Examiner's Answer dated
August 10, 2017 ("Ans.").
3 Claim 9 was canceled in a Response to Final Office Action dated
December 5, 2016.
Appeal2018-000909
Application 14/265,556
The subject matter on appeal relates to signal and drain conductor
arrangements for use with high speed cables. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix, is illustrative of the claims on
appeal.
1. An apparatus for transmitting signals comprising:
a shield;
first and second signal conductors contained within the shield,
the first signal conductor and the second signal conductor
each comprising a substantially rectangular cross
sectional shape; and
a drain conductor, the drain conductor comprising a
substantially rectangular cross sectional shape, and
wherein
the first and second signal conductors are positioned
horizontally and vertically equidistant;
the drain conductor is centrally positioned and vertically offset
from the first and second signal conductors, the
positioning of the drain conductor providing a drain
conductor zone, the drain conductor zone providing an
area where charge from the first and second signal
conductors is focused thereby increasing the
effectiveness of the drain conductor as a return path.
Br. 4 (Appendix A).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant appeals, the following
rejections:
Rejection 1: Claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Elrod
(US 6,653,570 Bl, issued November 25, 2003) (Ans. 2; Br. 2);
2
Appeal2018-000909
Application 14/265,556
Rejection 2: Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Elrod in view of
Pelletier et al. (US 2009/0225979 Al, published September 10, 2009)
("Pelletier") (Ans. 2; Br. 2);
Rejection 3: Claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Crump et al. (US 5,878,271, issued March 2, 1999) ("Crump") in view of
Elrod (Ans. 2; Br. 2); and
Rejection 4: Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Crump in view of
Elrod and Pelletier (Ans. 2; Br. 2).
DISCUSSION
After review of the Appellant and the Examiner's opposing positions,
we determine that Appellant has not identified reversible error in the
Examiner's rejections. Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set
forth below, in the Final Action, and in the Examiner's Answer. See
generally Final Act. 2-8; Ans. 3-5. We add the following.
Appellant argues the claims as a group, focusing on independent
claims 1 and 7, and does not present distinct arguments for the separate
grounds of rejection. See Br. 2-3. We select claim 1 as representative of the
rejected claims, and the remaining claims will stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Elrod's Figure 3 discloses claim 1 's
apparatus. Final Act. 2. In particular, the Examiner finds that conductors 12
of ribbon conductor assemblies 10 correspond to claim 1 's "first and second
signal conductors," and conductor 12 of ground conductor assembly 32
corresponds to the claimed "drain conductor." Id. The Examiner finds that
it would have been obvious from Elrod's Figure 3 for each of the first and
4 As discussed supra note 3, claim 9 was canceled.
3
Appeal2018-000909
Application 14/265,556
second signal conductors and the drain conductor to comprise "a
substantially rectangular cross sectional shape." Id.
Appellant argues that Elrod's Figure 3 shows each of signal
conductors and a drain conductor with an oval cross sectional shape. Br. 3.
Appellant further argues that the cited portions of Elrod ( nor anywhere else
in Elrod) is there any disclosure or suggestion of the first and second signal
conductors and the drain conductor comprising a substantially rectangular
cross sectional shape. Id.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. As the
Examiner finds, Figure 3 teaches that conductors 12 of both ribbon
conductor assemblies 10, and drain conductor 12 of ground conductor
assembly 32 have a substantially rectangular cross sectional shape. Ans. 4
("apparent in figure 3"). In addition, as the Examiner points out, Elrod
expressly discloses that its ribbon conductor assembly has "an
approximately rectangular cross-section transverse to a longitudinal axis of
the cable, a dielectric jacket enclosing the ribbon conductor, and an
electrically-conductor shield." Elrod, 3:19--24, 5:33-37, Fig. 1. The
Examiner's finding is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and
Appellant does not file a Reply Brief disputing the Examiner's finding.
Appellant additionally argues that Elrod does not disclose or suggest
that the first and second signal conductors are positioned horizontally and
vertically equidistant and the drain conductor is centrally positioned and
vertically offset from the first and second signal conductors where each of
the first and second signal conductors and the drain conductor are all
substantially rectangular cross sectional shape, much less where the
positioning of the drain conductor provides a drain conductor zone, the drain
4
Appeal2018-000909
Application 14/265,556
conductor zone providing an area where charge from the first and second
signal conductors is focused thereby increasing the effectiveness of the drain
conductor as a return path, as required by claims 1 and 7. Br. 3.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive because merely reciting the
claim language, and asserting that the Examiner's findings do not describe
such limitations is not a persuasive argument. See In re Lovin, 652 F .3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.").
On this record, Appellant's limited arguments do not persuade us of
reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-12.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Elrod is
affirmed.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Elrod in view of
Pelletier is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Crump in view of Elrod is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Crump in view
of Elrod and Pelletier is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5