Ex Parte Lane et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

14084262 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/084,262 11/19/2013 Brett Lane LCB813 2113
32915 7590
PANDUIT CORP.
18900 Panduit Drive
TINLEY PARK, IL 60487
EXAMINER
GUNBERG, EDWIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 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):
patents@panduit.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRETT LANE, ROBERT A. REID, and JOSEPH M. NASH
Appeal 2016-006476
Application 14/084,262
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-006476
Application 14/084,262
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-6 and 9-15. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The appeal is directed to an apparatus for mechanical splice
termination and evaluation of resulting splice joints with optical fibers
(Spec, f 2).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An apparatus for evaluating integrity of a splice joint present
within an optical fiber, said apparatus comprising:
a fiber optic coupling assembly configured to be directly or indirectly
connectable to said optical fiber;
a light source in optical communication with said fiber optic coupling
assembly, said light source configured to generate light pulses, wherein said
light pulses are coupled to said optical fiber, and wherein at least a portion of
said coupled light pulses are at least one of backscattered and reflected
within said optical fiber; and
a photo detector in optical communication with said fiber optic
coupling assembly, said photo detector configured to detect said at least one
of backscatter and reflection,
wherein said optical fiber is positioned at least partially within a fiber
optic connector, said fiber optic connector being a re-terminable fiber optic
connector having a stub fiber therein and configured to be connectorized to a
field fiber, said optical fiber including said stub fiber and said field fiber, and
wherein said fiber optic coupling assembly is directly or indirectly
connectable to said fiber optic connector.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-6 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
unpatentable over Brendel et al. (WO 2004/090499 Al, published
Oct. 21, 2004) (“Brendel”).
2
Appeal 2016-006476
Application 14/084,262
2. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Brendel in view of Lazo (US 2007/0014526 Al, published Jan. 18,
2007).
3. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Brendel.
4. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Brendel in view of Fluke (Fluke Networks: DTX Compact OTDR
(2007)).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Brendel fails to teach a re-terminable fiber optic
connector having a stub fiber therein and configured to be connected to a
field fiber (App. Br. 6). Appellants argue that fiber 24 in Brendel is not a
stub fiber as found by the Examiner (App. Br. 7). Appellants argue that
fiber 24 is part of the Optical Time-Domain Reflectometer (OTDR) and is
not a re-terminable fiber optic connector that is connected to a field fiber
(App. Br. 7). Appellants contend that the unnumbered box depicted in
Figure 1A of Brendel between optical fiber 24 and field fiber 30 is not
described at all in Brendel (App. Br. 7). Appellants argue that there is
nothing to suggest in Brendel that the unnumbered box that serves a
connector includes a stub fiber or is re-terminable (App. Br. 7-8).
The Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
‘“stub fiber’ is merely a fiber that ends” (Ans. 3). The Examiner finds that
the connector depicted between fiber 24 and field fiber 30 is the “‘re-
terminable connector’” (Ans. 3).
3
Appeal 2016-006476
Application 14/084,262
Appellants respond that the Examiner’s construction of “stub fiber” as
including any fiber that ends is unreasonable because it is inconsistent with
the ordinary and customary meaning of that phrase (Reply Br. 2).
Appellants contend that a stub fiber within the meaning of the Specification
is a fiber that is positioned within a fiber connector as shown Appellants’
Figure la and described in the incorporated by reference patent US
7,241,056 on page 4 of the Specification (Reply Br. 2-3). Appellants
contend that claim 1 requires the stub fiber to be positioned within a re-
terminable connector (Reply Br. 3). Appellants contend that the language of
claim 1 as described by the Specification requires that a “stub fiber” is “a
relatively short fiber positioned inside of a fiber optic connector during the
connector’s manufacture” (Reply Br. 3).
The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellants’ arguments of
novelty. Claim 1 recites “a re-terminable fiber optic connector having a stub
fiber therein.” This language requires that the stub fiber is contained within
the re-terminable connector. This construction of claim 1 is supported by
Appellants’ Figure la that depicts the stub fiber 135 completely contained
within the ferrule 115 of the connector 110. Therefore, we construe the
claim phrase “a re-terminable fiber optic connector having a stub fiber
therein” in light of the Specification as requiring that the stub fiber is
completely contained within the re-terminable connector. The Examiner has
not explained how Brendel’s fiber 24 that extends to the unnumbered
connector box between field fiber 30 and fiber 24 would constitute a re-
terminable fiber optic connector having a stub fiber therein as that phrase is
properly construed. The Examiner has not dispensed with the initial burden
of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation over the Brendel reference.
4
Appeal 2016-006476
Application 14/084,262
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection over
Brendel. The Examiner does not rely on any of the additional references in
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections to cure the deficiency in the rejection with
regard to Brendel. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections
as well.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
5