Ex Parte German et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 19, 2016

12787486 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121787,486 05/26/2010 Michael German
79207 7590 07/20/2016
MYERS BIGEL & SIBLEY, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
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.
9457-241IP 4696
EXAMINER
NGUYEN,NAMV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL GERMAN, PETER T. TUCKER,
MATIAS PELUFFO, and LUC WALTER ADRIAENS SENS
Appeal2014-009620
Application 12/787,486
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 24--26, 30-35, 52-54, and 72. Claims 44--51
and 55-70 are canceled. See App. Br. (Claims App.) 19, 22. Claims 27-29,
36-43, 71, and 73 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim, but otherwise in condition for allowance. Non-Final Act. 1, 9. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as CommScope, Inc. App. Br.
1.
Appeal2014-009620
Application 12/787,486
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is generally directed to
an intelligent connector port assembly. Spec. i-f 0015.2
Claims 24 and 52 are illustrative and reproduced below (with the
disputed limitations emphasized):
24. An intelligent connector port assembly, comprising:
a connector port having a plug aperture that is configured
to electrically connect a data communications channel of a patch
cord that is connected to an input of the connector port to a data
communications channel of a communications cable that is
connected to an output of the connector port;
an integrated circuit chip;
a first pair of contacts mounted adjacent the plug aperture
that are configured to mate with a pair of contacts on the patch
cord when the patch cord is received within the plug aperture;
a second pair of contacts that are configured to mate with
a pair of conductors in the communications cable that form a
control channel;
wherein at least a first contact of the first pair of contacts
and a first contact of the second pair of contacts are electrically
connected to the integrated circuit chip.
52. An RJ-45 connector port assembly, comprising:
a communications cable having first through tenth
insulated conductors;
2 Our Decision refers to the Non-Final Action mailed Dec. 5, 2013 ("Non-
Final Act."); Appellants' Second Appeal Brief filed Mar. 4, 2014 ("App.
Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed July 14, 2014 ("Ans."); Appellants'
Reply Brief filed Sept. 8, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and, the original Specification
filed May 26, 2010 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2014-009620
Application 12/787,486
an RJ-45 jack that includes first through eighth wire
connection terminals that are mounted on a first printed circuit
board and that receive respective of the first through eighth
insulated conductors; and
a second printed circuit board that includes ninth and tenth
wire connection terminals that receive the ninth and tenth
insulated conductors, respectively.
References and Rejections on Appeal
Claims 24 and 31-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Caveney et al. (US 7,811,119 B2; issued Oct. 12,
2010) ("Caveney") and Wallace et al. (US 6,871,156 B2; May 22, 2005)
("Wallace"). Non-Final Act. 2.
Claims 25, 26, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Caveney, Wallace, and Loeffelholz et al. (US
8,081,482 Bl; Dec. 20, 2011) ("Loeffelholz"). Non-Final Act. 4.
Claims 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Caveney, Wallace, Loeffelholz, and Nordin et al. (US
7,563,102 B2; July 21, 2009) ("Nordin"). Non-Final Act. 6.
Claims 52-54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McNally et al. (US 8,477,031 B2; issued July 2, 2013)
("McNally") and Caveney. Non-Final Act. 7.
3
Appeal2014-009620
Application 12/787,486
Issues
Appellants' arguments in the Briefs present us with the following
dispositive issues: 3
1. Does Wallace teach or suggest providing "a second pair of
contacts that are configured to mate with a pair of conductors
in the communications cable that form a control channel," as
recited in claim 24?
2. Does McNally teach or suggest an RJ-45 jack "that includes
first through eighth wire connection terminals that are mounted
on a first printed circuit board and that receive respective of
the first through eighth insulated conductors," as recited in
claim 52?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 re Claim 24
Appellants contend Wallace fails to teach or suggest providing "a
second pair of contacts that are configured to mate with a pair of conductors
in the communications cable that form a control channel," as recited in claim
24. In particular, Appellants argue Wallace fails to teach or suggest "a
second pair of contacts" because the data line 144 relied on by the Examiner
teaches only a single contact. App. Br. 9. Appellants also argue Wallace
fails to teach or suggest a second pair of contacts that are configured to
"mate with a pair of conductors in the communications cable" because data
3 Because we find these issues to be dispositive of the Appeal, we need not,
and do not, address other issues raised by Appellants arguments.
4
Appeal2014-009620
Application 12/787,486
line 144 does not mate with a communications cable, "let alone a cable with
a pair of conductors that form a control channel." Id. 9-10; Reply Br. 5---6.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred.
Although the Examiner finds the data line 144 of Figure 2 has "two or more
data lines," as "[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand"
(see Ans. 4--5), we agree with Appellants that these findings are unsupported
and contrary to Wallace's teaching of a single data line 144, as opposed to
plural data lines. See Reply 4--5 (citing Wallace 4:62---65 ("module 128 ...
is directed by instructions received via a data line 144") ). We also agree
with Appellants' argument that, although the Examiner "is correct that
Wallace discloses an embodiment that includes multiple patch panels 126
and hence multiple data lines 144 as well, this does not change the fact that
each patch panel 126 includes a single data line 144," as shown and
described in Wallace. Id. at 4. We further agree with Appellants that
Wallace does not teach data line 144 mating with a communications cable
and, therefore, Wallace does not teach providing "a second pair of contacts
that are configured to mate with a pair of conductors in the communications
cable that form a control channel." Id. at 5---6.
Appellants further argue it appears the Examiner asserts a new
argument in the Answer, "namely that a pair of data lines extend between
the FPGA 128 and the connector 122 in FIG. 2 of Wallace may correspond
to the 'second pair of contacts' of Claim 2[4] instead of the data line 144."
Id. at 5. Appellants argue it is inappropriate for the Examiner to attempt to
change the basis for the rejection in the Answer. Id. Appellants have,
however, waived any argument that the Examiner's Answer contains a new
ground of rejection because Appellants did not file a petition under 37
5
Appeal2014-009620
Application 12/787,486
C.F .R. § 1.181 (a) within two months from the mailing of the Examiner's
Answer. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a) (2013). Regarding the Examiner's "new
argument," the Examiner finds "the data lines 144 connect to the pair of
contacts that form the data communication channel to the NCAP (146) or a
computer (150)." See Ans. 5---6 (citing Wallace Fig. 2, 4:16-30). The
Examiner has not, however, provided persuasive evidence or technical
reasoning demonstrating that this teaching of Wallace teaches or suggests "a
second pair of contacts that are configured to mate with a pair of conductors
in the communications cable that form a control channel," as recited in claim
24.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 24
for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of
Caveney and Wallace. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 25, 26, and 30-35, which depend from claim 1.
Issue 2 re Claim 52
Appellants contend McNally does not teach or suggest an RJ-45 jack
"that includes first through eighth wire connection terminals that are
mounted on a first printed circuit board and that receive respective of the
first through eighth insulated conductors," as recited in claim 52. App. Br.
15-16; Reply Br. 9-10. The Examiner finds that McNally teaches an RJ-45
jack that "includes first through eighth wire connection terminals that are
mounted on a first printed circuit board (108) and that receive respective of
the first through eighth insulated conductors." Ans. 11 (citing McNally
Figures 1, 4, 18, 19; 3:35--43, 6:36-54). Appellants argue, however, and we
agree, that ( 1) printed circuit board 108 is part of the patch panel, and not
part of a connector port, and (2) printed circuit board 108 does not include
6
Appeal2014-009620
Application 12/787,486
"first through eighth wire connection terminals" that "receive respective of
the first through eighth insulated conductors." Reply Br. 10; see McNally
Fig. 19, 6:46-50 (patch panel port contacts "are provided with flexible
members 106, which are electrically connected to a PCB 108 of the
intelligent interconnect patch panel 14"). Thus, we agree with Appellants
that McNally does not teach or suggest an RJ-45 jack "that includes first
through eighth wire connection terminals that are mounted on a first printed
circuit board and that receive respective of the first through eighth insulated
conductors," as recited in claim 52.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 52
for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of
McNally and Caveney. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 53, 54, and 72, which depend from claim 52.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 24--26, 30-35, 52-54,
and 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
7