Ex Parte Liptak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2018

13804245 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/804,245 03/14/2013
22851 7590
Delphi Technologies LLC
P.O. Box 5052
MIC 483-400-402
Troy, MI 48007-5052
03/29/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
NICOLE L. LIPTAK
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.
DP-320754 6688
EXAMINER
PAGHADAL, PARESH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2847
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2018 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):
kandace.k.powell@aptiv.com
patent@aptiv.com
michele. m. piscitelli @apti v .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICOLE L. LIPTAK and JOHN WICKS 1
Appeal2017-004476
Application 13/804,245
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
AVEL YN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an
Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1--4, 6-8, and 10-30. Claims 5
and 9 are also pending but have been withdrawn from consideration. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief. The limitations at issue are italicized.
1 The real party in interest, and the Applicant, is identified as Delphi
Technologies, Inc. Appeal Brief dated June 13, 2016 ("Br."), at 2.
Appeal2017-004476
Application 13/804,245
1. A wire cable comprising:
a central twisted pair of first and second conductors, each
enclosed within a respective first and second dielectric
insulators that are bonded together and running the length of the
wire cable;
a third dielectric insulator enclosing the first and second
dielectric insulators;
a conductive sheet enclosing the third dielectric insulator,
wherein the conductive sheet is longitudinally wrapped about
the third dielectric insulator;
a third conductor outside of the conductive sheet,
extending generally parallel to the central twisted pair of first
and second conductors and in intimate contact with the
conductive sheet;
a braided conductor enclosing the conductive sheet and
the third conductor and in intimate contact with the conductive
sheet and the third conductor; and
a fourth dielectric insulator enclosing the braided
conductor, wherein the third dielectric insulator provides
consistent radial spacing between the conductive sheet and the
central twisted pair of first and second conductors and provides
a consistent twist angle for the central twisted pair of first and
second conductors, wherein said wire cable has a generally
round cross section and wherein a section of said wire cable
having a length of at least 7 meters is capable of transmitting
digital data at a speed of up to 5 Gigabits per second with an
insertion loss of less than 20 Db.
Br. 26.
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
2
Appeal2017-004476
Application 13/804,245
(1) claims 1-3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14--20, 24--26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Grant et al. 2 in view of Gagnon, 3 Deitz, Sr. et
al., 4 and Gundel et al.; s, 6
(2) claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Grant in view of Gagnon, Deitz, and Gundel, and further in view ofWang; 7
(3) claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grant
in view of Gagnon, Deitz, and Gundel, and further in view of Thuot et al.; 8
(4) claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grant
in view of Gagnon, Deitz, and Gundel, and further in view of Fetterolf, Sr. et
al.;9
(5) claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grant
in view of Gagnon, Deitz, and Gundel, and further in view of Goldlust et
al.; 10
(6) claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grant
in view of Gagnon, Deitz, and Gundel, and further in view of Okano; 11
2 US 2011/0315419 Al, published December 29, 2011 ("Grant").
3 US 6,441,308 Bl, issued August 27, 2002 ("Gagnon").
4 US 5,956,445, issued September 21, 1999 ("Deitz").
5 US 2012/0285723 Al, published November 15, 2012 ("Gundel").
6 Claims 14--18 and 28 are not included in the statement of the rejection.
Final Office Action dated February 26, 2016 ("Final Act."), at 2. The
Examiner, however, discusses those claims in the body of the rejection. Id.
at 7-8, 11. Therefore, the statement of the rejection has been amended to
include claims 14--18 and 28.
7 CN202134270, published February 1, 2012 ("Wang").
8 US 7,795,539, issued September 14, 2010 ("Thuot").
9 US 7,208,684 B2, issued April 24, 2007 ("Fetterolf').
10 US 6,841,734 B2, issued January 11, 2005 ("Goldlust").
11 US 2010/0307790 Al, published December 9, 2010 ("Okano").
3
Appeal2017-004476
Application 13/804,245
(7) claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grant
in view of Gagnon, Deitz, and Gundel, and further in view of Spooner; 12
(8) claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grant
in view of Gagnon, Deitz, and Gundel, and further in view of Kaczmarski; 13
(9) claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grant
in view of Gagnon, Deitz, and Gundel, and further in view of Berelsman; 14
and
(10) claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grant
in view of Gagnon, Gundel, Deitz, and Spooner.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Grant discloses a wire cable as recited in claim 1
with the exception of a braided conductor and a fourth dielectric insulator
enclosing the braided conductor, wherein the wire cable has a generally
round cross section and "a section of the wire cable having a length of at
least 7 meters is capable of transmitting digital data at a speed of up to 5
Gigabits per second with an insertion loss of less than 20 dB." Final Act. 2-
4.
The Examiner finds Gagnon discloses a wire cable comprising a
braided conductor and a fourth dielectric insulator as recited in claim 1.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Grant's wire cable with a braided
conductor and fourth dielectric insulator as disclosed in Gagnon "to improve
shielding of the cable." Id.
12 US 2002/0064356 Al, published May 30, 2002 ("Spooner").
13 US 2004/0262027 Al, published December 30, 2004 ("Kaczmarski").
14 US 6,431,904 Bl, issued August 13, 2002 ("Berelsman").
4
Appeal2017-004476
Application 13/804,245
As for the claimed cross section, the Examiner relies on Deitz. The
Examiner finds Deitz discloses a wire cable having a generally round cross
section. Id.; see also id. at 27 (finding that the embodiments depicted in
Grant's Figures 5-7 show a wire cable having a generally round cross
section). The Examiner finds that a round cross section is "one of numerous
configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the
purpose to minimize friction or stress as the cable moves to minimize
damage to [the] cable." Final Act. 4. Therefore, the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Grant's wire cable to have a generally round cross section as disclosed in
Deitz. Id.
As for the claimed wire cable length, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "to have [a] cable
with [a] length of 7 meters or more in order to efficiently connect two
electrical components at a distance." Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that
Grant's modified wire cable, which has the claimed structure, is intrinsically
or inherently capable of transmitting digital data at a speed of up to 5
Gigabits per second with an insertion loss of less than 20 dB. Id.
The Appellants do not dispute that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify Grant's wire cable with the braided
conductor and fourth dielectric insulator disclosed in Gagnon "to improve
shielding of the cable." 15 Rather, the Appellants argue that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have predicted that improving shielding
15 Final Act. 4.
5
Appeal2017-004476
Application 13/804,245
performance would necessarily provide the claimed data transmission rate
and insertion loss. Br. 13, 14--15.
The Appellants also do not direct us to any error in the Examiner's
finding that a generally round cross section is one of numerous
configurations recognized in the art to minimize friction or stress. Rather,
the Appellants argue that "making a change in shape of the wire cable while
providing the claimed data transmission rate and insertion loss performance
may not be within the level of ordinary skill in the art." Br. 15 (emphasis
added).
The Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner finds, and the Appellants do not dispute, that Grant's modified
wire cable has the same structure as the claimed wire cable and, for that
reason, is inherently capable of transmitting digital data at the speed and
insertion loss recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 4. 16
In that regard, the Appellants disclose:
[I]t is a combination of the elements, such as the bonding of the
first and second insulators ... and the belting ... , the inner
shield ... and not any one particular element that provides a
wire cable ... having consistent impedance that is capable of
transmitting digital data at a speed of 5 Gb/s or more, even
when the wire cable ... is bent.
Spec. i-f 43; see also Br. 5 (stating that "[i]t has been found that a wire cable
(100) of this construction [i.e., the construction of claim 1] having a length
of at least 7 meters is capable of transmitting digital data at a speed of up to
5 Gigabits per second with an insertion loss of less than 20 dB"); Br. 17
(contending that the structure of the wire cable determines the data
16 Examiner's Answer dated November 14, 2016.
6
Appeal2017-004476
Application 13/804,245
transmission and insertion loss performance characteristics). Thus, an
express disclosure in the prior art that a wire cable, having the structure
recited in claim 1, is capable of providing the claimed digital data
transmission speed and insertion loss is not necessary to demonstrate
obviousness. See Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
773 F.2d 1186, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concept of inherency, when applied to
obviousness, is present when the limitation at issue is the "natural result" of
the combination of prior art elements).
To the extent that a generally round cross section is significant (Br.
15), the Appellants have not directed us to any evidence showing that the
claimed wire cable, having a generally round cross section, 17 exhibits
unexpected results. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
("unexpected results must be established by factual evidence[; m ]ere
argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice").
Finally, the Appellants argue that "Gundel does not explicitly disclose
that a cable with a length of 7 meters has an insertion loss of less than 20 dB
at 2.5 GHz." Br. 16. The Appellants also argue that "Gundel is not
predictive of the data transmission and insertion loss performance of a
combination of Grant, Gagnon, and Dietz which would have a completely
different physical structure than the wire cable disclosed in Gundel." Br. 17.
17 The Appellants do not define a "generally round cross section" in the
Specification. Moreover, the Appellants' originally filed drawings depict
the wire cable as having a substantially oval cross section. Thus, we find the
phrase "generally round cross section" encompasses some amount of
deviation from a round cross section.
7
Appeal2017-004476
Application 13/804,245
The Examiner explains that Gundel is cited as additional supporting
evidence. Ans. 4. For the reasons discussed above, the wire cable recited in
claim 1 is rendered obvious by the combination of Grant, Gagnon, and
Dietz. Therefore, it is not necessary to address the Appellants' arguments
directed to Gundel.
The§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate
patentability of the dependent claims on appeal. See Br. 13, 17-18.
Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 2--4, 6-8, and 10-29 are
sustained.
As for independent claim 30, the Appellants present substantially the
same arguments in support of the patentability of claim 30 that were
presented in support of the patentability of claim 1. See Br. 19-23. For the
reasons discussed above, those arguments are not persuasive of reversible
error. Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 30 also is sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
8