Ex Parte KOTO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

13526667 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/526,667 06/19/2012
65565 7590 07/02/2018
SUGHRUE-265550
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3213
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Naoki KOTO
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.
Ql40737 9853
EXAMINER
ESTRADA, ANGEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2848
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 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):
SUGHRUE265550@SUGHRUE.COM
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAOKI KOTO
Appeal2018-000417
Application 13/526,667
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 We cite the Specification ("Spec.") filed June 19, 2012; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") dated July 10, 2015; Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.")
dated May 20, 2016; and Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated December 13,
2016.
2 Appellant identifies Yazaki Corporation as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000417
Application 13/526,667
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a structure and method for connecting electric
cables. Spec. 1:8-10. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A connecting structure for electric cables,
compnsmg:
a first electric cable including a first core made of a
plurality of wires and a first cover covering the first core,
wherein a portion of the first core is exposed from an end of the
first cover;
a second electric cable including a second core made of a
plurality of wires and made of a different metal from that of the
first core and a second cover covering the second core, wherein
a portion of the second core is exposed from an end of the
second cover; and
a tube which is shrunk in a state where the tube
accommodates thereinside the portion of the first core and a
portion of the second core which are connected to each other,
wherein an inside of the tube being filled with cured hot-
melt, the cured hot-melt being located at least between the
plurality of wires in the first and second core and between the
first and second cover and the first and second core
respectively,
wherein a hot-melt has a predetermined thickness before
being heated such that the cured hot-melt permeates to the gaps
between the wires of the first core, between the wires and the
first cover, between the wires of the second core, and between
the wires and the second cover without excess or insufficient
hot-melt.
Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-000417
Application 13/526,667
REJECTIONS 3
I. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Haga4 and Saito. 5
II. Claims 2-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wetmore, 6 Saito, and Haga.
OPINION
Rejection I
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Haga discloses an
electric cable connector in which dissimilar metal cable cores are surrounded
by a heat shrink tube. Final Act. 4. The Examiner acknowledges that Haga
does not disclose a hot melt adhesive within the tube and permeated between
the wires forming the cable cores. Id. However, the Examiner finds that
Saito teaches providing a hot melt adhesive layer within a heat shrink tube of
a wire connector to waterproof the cable connection. Id. at 4--5. The
Examiner finds, therefore, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
had a reason to provide a hot melt adhesive layer within Haga' s heat shrink
tube-namely, to enhance prevention of water from the cable splice. Final
Act. 5.
Appellant argues that "Saito do[es] not discuss any permeation of hot
melt between wires of any cable core." Br. 10. Appellant also argues that
3 The Examiner's rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is withdrawn.
Ans. 2.
4 JP 2009-009736, published January 15, 2009 ("Haga"), as translated.
5 US 6,090,231, issued July 18, 2000 ("Saito").
6 US 3,243,211, issued March 29, 1966 ("Wetmore").
3
Appeal2018-000417
Application 13/526,667
Saito fails to specify that the applied hot melt adhesive layer is of a
predetermined thickness. Id. at 11. Appellant's arguments are not
persuasive of reversible error. Saito discloses hot melt adhesive provided as
a layer on an inner wall of the heat-shrinkable tube. Saito 5:19--21. Upon
application of heat to shrink the tube, the adhesive melt flows to accomplish
the desired waterproofing property. Compare Saito Fig. 2 ( depicting hot
melt adhesive layer before heating), with Fig. 8. (depicting hot melt adhesive
after heating and flowing to fill the interior of the heat-shrinkable tube).
Appellant does not identify any aspect of Saito' s hot melt adhesive layer
which, when applied to Raga's connector, would preclude hot melt adhesive
from flowing within any unoccupied space within the heat-shrinkable tube,
including any gap between individual wires of the wire core. To the
contrary, Saito teaches that the hot melt adhesive "melts to fully penetrate
gaps" within the heat-shrinkable tube. Saito 6:50-52. Moreover, given
Saito' s disclosed purpose of permitting the melted adhesive to flow in order
to waterproof the wire-connecting portion within the heat-shrinkable tube
(id. at 6:54--56), we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill would have
desired penetration of hot melt adhesive into any region at which the
connected wires otherwise would be exposed. Regarding the claimed
predetermined thickness, the Examiner finds that Saito' s teaching that the
hot melt adhesive layer advantageously results in a hermetically sealed
connection region without overflow of excess adhesive is evidence that the
adhesive layer is provided at a predetermined thickness. Final Act. 3--4.
Appellant does not respond to this line of reasoning by the Examiner. 7
7 No Reply Brief has been received.
4
Appeal2018-000417
Application 13/526,667
On this appeal record, we are persuaded that the Examiner's findings
are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant does not
persuade us of reversible error. Rejection I is sustained.
Rejection II
Appellant does not present any argument particularly addressing
Rejection II, except to contend that claim 1 is patentable over the prior art
cited in connection with Rejection I, and that "claim 2 is similarly
patentable." Br. 13. Because we are not persuaded by Appellant's
arguments in connection with Rejection I, Rejection II also is sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5 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