Ex Parte KOTODownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 28, 201813526667 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation