Ex Parte Marchisio et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

14102180 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017)

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.
14/102,180 12/10/2013 Jean-Michel Marchisio 710240-6846/S Y-42461 1021
59582 7590 09/28/2017
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
2600 WEST BIG BEAVER ROAD
SUITE 300
TROY, MI 48084-3312
EXAMINER
EGOAVIL, GUILLERMO J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2847
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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 JEAN-MICHEL MARCHISIO and
BENOIT LAURENT
Appeal 2017-001776
Application 14/102,180
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification dated December
10, 2013 (Spec.), Final Office Action dated November 4, 2015 (Final), the
Appeal Brief dated April 4, 2016 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s Answer
dated September 22, 2016 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief dated November 22,
2016 (Reply Br.).
2 Appellants are Applicants, Federal-Mogul Powertrain, Inc. and Acome
Societe Cooperative Et Participative Societe Anonyme Cooperative De
Production A Capital Variable, which according to the Appeal Brief, are also
the real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-001776
Application 14/102,180
obvious over Aldissi3 in view of Harris4 and claims 3—6 as obvious over
those references further in view of additional prior art. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to a coaxial cable with an electromagnetic
interference (EMI) shield layer braided with hybrid yam. See, e.g., claim 1.
The hybrid yam includes at least one electrically conductive wire filament
twisted or served with at least one nonconductive filament. Id. Figures 3—
12 illustrate such hybrid yams 18 with nonconductive filaments 20 and
electrically conductive filaments 22. Claim 1, with the key limitation at
issue highlighted, is further illustrative:
1. A coaxial cable, comprising:
a central conductive member;
a dielectric insulative layer surrounding said central
conductive member;
an outer protective sheath; and
a braided EMI shield layer sandwiched between said
dielectric insulative layer and said outer protective sheath, said
braided EMI shield layer being braided with hybrid yam, said
hybrid yarn including at least one electrically conductive wire
filament twisted or served with at least one nonconductive
filament.
Appeal Br., Exhibit A (emphasis added).
3 Aldissi, US 5,262,592, issued Nov. 16, 1993.
4 Harris et al., US 2010/0084179 Al, published Apr. 8, 2010.
2
Appeal 2017-001776
Application 14/102,180
OPINION
For all the rejections, the issue is: Have Appellants identified a
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that the prior art provides a reason
for using the hybrid yam of Harris in the braided EMI shield layer of
Aldissi?
Appellants have not identified such an error. Because the issue is the
same for all the rejections, we focus our reasoning on the rejection of claim
1.
There is no dispute that Aldissi discloses a coaxial cable having a
central conductive layer, dielectric insulative layer, and outer protective
sheath as required by claim 1. Compare Final 4, with Appeal Br. 3—5, and
Reply Br. 1—5. Further, there is no dispute that Aldissi discloses a braided
EMI shield layer sandwiched between the dielectric insulative layer and
outer protective sheath. Id.
Aldissi indicates that it was known in the art to shield wire and cable
from external EMI signals by providing an overlayer of metallicized, braided
or served mesh, but that the commercial materials available at the time could
not meet the demand for more flexible and lighter weight shielded cables
needed in the aerospace industry. Aldissi col. 1,11. 29-44. Aldissi teaches a
more flexible and lighter weight metal-coated polymer fiber, such as a
silver-coated aramid or nylon fiber in a braided EMI shield layer. Aldissi
col. 4,11. 29—36. This metal-coated, high tensile strength polymer fiber
improves the flexibility and strength of the overall composite constmction,
are lower cost, and have economy of size and weight as compared to
traditional metal wire mesh shields. Aldissi col. 1,11. 54—57; col. 2,11. 35—
50. Harris teaches a sleeve constmcted from hybrid yam members including
3
Appeal 2017-001776
Application 14/102,180
electrically conductive wire filament twisted or served with at least one
nonconductive filament. Harris 132. There is no dispute that the hybrid
yams have the composition and stmcture required by claim 1. Compare
Final 4—5, with Appeal Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 2—5; compare Appellants’ Figs.
3—12, with Harris Figs. 5—16. The sleeve can be constmcted in any desired
protective sleeve form, such as, a seamless cylindrical form via braiding.
Harris 133. The sleeve provides a secure durable, flexible covering for
organizing and protecting wires from EMI. Harris H 32—33.
Harris describes the sleeve of hybrid yam as less expensive than
silver-coated nylon EMI shielding sleeves and more reliable because there is
no coating to wear off. Harris H 6—7.
Appellants contend that one skilled in the art would not have modified
the teachings of Aldissi in view of Harris because Aldissi teaches away from
including hybrid yam in Aldissi’s EMI shield layer. Appeal Br. 3^4. This is
because, according to Appellants, Aldissi uses metal-coated high tensile
strength polymer fibers as an improvement over prior art plated fibers and
metal wire mesh. Appeal Br. 4.
A reference teaches away from a claimed invention when a person of
ordinary skill, “upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The fact that Aldissi teaches using metal-
coated polymeric fibers as an improvement over traditional wire mesh or
metallicized, braided or served mesh is not a teaching away from using the
hybrid yam of Harris. Aldissi is silent with regard to hybrid yam and silence
is not a teaching away. Moreover, once one considers the teachings of
4
Appeal 2017-001776
Application 14/102,180
Harris along with those of Aldissi, a clear reason for using the hybrid yam of
Harris emerges: Harris teaches the hybrid yam as an improvement over
metal-coated polymer fibers, such as the silver-coated polymer nylon fibers
of Aldissi, in EMI shielding sleeves. Harris 6—7.
Appellants contend that one would not turn to Harris because Harris
describes the hybrid yam as more reliable against wear, which Appellants
argue means the reference is expressly directed to outwardly exposed
sleeves, not to a layer laminated between other layers of a composite
conductor assembly, such as the shield layer 15 taught by Aldissi. Appeal
Br. 4. But Harris’ discussion of reliability against wear is a reference to the
fact that the hybrid yam does not have a metal coating, such as silver, that
can be worn off. Harris 17. This teaching, cited by Appellants, supports the
Examiner’s finding of a suggestion to replace the metal-coated fibers of
Aldissi with the hybrid yam of Harris to eliminate the coating and thus the
wearing problem. Although Harris does not specifically disclose coating the
sleeve, Aldissi discloses such a coating, and given the materials and the
evidence in Aldissi indicating that those of ordinary skill in the art
understood how to provide such coatings over a variety of materials, we
cannot agree with Appellants that it would not have been within the skill of
the ordinary artisan to apply the coating. “A person of ordinary skill is also
a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex
/«c., 550 U.S. 398,421 (2007).
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
5
Appeal 2017-001776
Application 14/102,180
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1,.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
6