Ex Parte Oozeki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 10, 2018

13628444 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/628,444 09/27/2012 Nobuo Oozeki
38834 7590 10/12/2018
WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
8500 Leesburg Pike
SUITE 7500
Tysons, VA 22182
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
121145 6590
EXAMINER
HOFFMANN, JOHN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2018 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):
patentmail@whda.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NOBUO OOZEKI,
KENTARO ICHII, and TOMOFUMI ARAI
Appeal2018-000275
Application 13/628,444
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 1-172. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, FUJIKURA LTD., which, according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed April 19, 201 7
("App. Br."), 2.
2 Final Office Action entered October 14, 2016 ("Final Act.").
Appeal2018-000275
Application 13/628,444
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of manufacturing an
optical fiber base material ( claim 1) and a method of manufacturing an
optical fiber (independent claim 17). Claims 1 and 17 illustrate the subject
matter on appeal and are reproduced below with contested language
italicized:
1. A method of manufacturing an optical fiber base material
comprising steps of:
(a) preparing a glass tube; and
(b) rotating and heating the glass tube fixed at two
positions and supplying a gas into a through-hole of the glass
tube,
wherein the glass tube is fixed such that an axis of the
glass tube has a substantially inverted catenary curve shape in
the vertical direction while the glass tube is heated.
17. A method of manufacturing an optical fiber comprising
steps of:
preparing a glass tube;
rotating and heating the glass tube fixed at two positions
and supplying a gas into a through-hole of the glass tube to
form an optical fiber base material, wherein the glass tube is
fixed such that an axis of the glass tube has a substantially
inverted catenary curve shape in the vertical direction while the
glass tube is heated; and
drawing the optical fiber base material.
App. Br. 9, 14 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
The Examiner sets forth the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Glodis et al. (US 6,105,396, issued August 22,
2000) in the Final Office Action, and maintains the rejection in the
Examiner's Answer entered August 9, 2017 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2018-000275
Application 13/628,444
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant's contentions, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the reasons set forth in the Appeal
Brief and below.
Claims 1 and 1 7 both recite a method that comprises, inter alia,
rotating and heating a glass tube fixed at two positions, such that an axis of
the glass tube has a substantially inverted catenary curve shape in the
vertical direction while the glass tube is heated.
Glodis discloses a method and apparatus for manufacturing a glass
preform using modified chemical vapor deposition. Col. 1, 11. 7-1 O; col. 4,
11. 42--45; Fig. 1. Glodis discloses that the apparatus includes lathe 120
having headstock 13 and tailstock 14 that each support one end of glass
substrate tube 33 in a manner that allows the tube to be rotated. Col. 4, 11.
51-55; Fig. 1. Glodis discloses directing a constantly moving stream of
reactants and oxygen through the interior of rotating substrate tube 33 while
a torch assembly directs flames toward tube 33 as it slowly traverses the
length of the rotating tube. Col. 4, 11. 60-63; col. 5, 11. 7-15, 39--42. Glodis
discloses that each pass of the torch assembly causes a single layer of silicon
dioxide and dopants to be fused onto the inner wall of the tube. Col. 5, 11.
49-51.
Glodis discloses that substrate tube 33 thus spends considerable time
at elevated temperatures, and is therefore susceptible to inadvertent changes
in shape. Col. 5, 1. 64---col. 6, 1. 1. To address such shape changes, Glodis
discloses including a machine-vision system in the apparatus that causes
substrate tube 33 to have a central longitudinal axis 310 in the shape of a
3
Appeal2018-000275
Application 13/628,444
straight line. Col. 6, 11. 1-5. Glodis discloses that if "tube 33 is not perfectly
straight" then its shadow will wobble up and down on an array of
photodetectors, and a controller will respond "to such wobble by varying the
rotation speed of[] tube 33 according to its angular position" so as to
straighten the tube. Col. 6, 11. 18-29. Glodis discloses that "rotation speed
is slower when the angular position of the tube is such that it is bowed
upward; and rotation speed is faster when the angular position of the tube is
such that it is bowed downward." Col. 6, 11. 23-27.
The Examiner finds that this disclosure in Glodis of a glass tube that
is "bowed upward" corresponds to the "substantially inverted catenary curve
shape" recited in claims 1 and 1 7. Final Act. 3. According to the Examiner,
the phrase "while the glass tube is heated" recited in claims 1 and 17 "does
not specify any duration for the [inverted catenary curve] shape." Id. The
Examiner therefore determines that under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, the phrase "while the glass tube is heated" therefore
corresponds to "at a point in the course of' heating the glass tube. Final Act.
3; Advisory Action entered December 22, 2016, 2.
The Examiner finds that although Glodis does not disclose that the
tube is bowed upward "throughout all [the] heating step," Glodis nonetheless
discloses that the tube is bowed upward "at a point in the course of' heating
the glass tube, which the Examiner finds corresponds to the glass tube
having a substantially inverted catenary curve shape in the vertical direction
"while the glass tube is heated." Final Act. 3; Ans. 5-6.
However, the Specification explains that arch-like bending is a known
problem in the art of manufacturing optical fibers using modified chemical
vapor deposition and results from heating a rotating glass tube while both
4
Appeal2018-000275
Application 13/628,444
ends are fixed. Spec. ,r,r 2-3. The Specification explains that when such
bending occurs, "a whirling causing the eccentric rotation of the glass tube
occurs with the rotation." Spec. ,r 3. The Specification indicates that the
invention is directed to suppressing such bending and concomitant whirling,
and does so by maintaining the glass tube in a substantially inverted catenary
curve shape in the vertical direction "in the step in which the glass tube is
heated." Spec. ,r,r 11, 23, 79.
As Appellant correctly argues, the Specification repeatedly describes
maintaining the glass tube in this inverted catenary curve shape during the
step in which the glass tube is heated. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 23 ("In the step in
which the glass tube is heated, the glass tube is warped so that the axis of the
glass tube between the fixed portions has a shape in which the catenary
curve is reversed in the vertical direction, the bending of the glass tube may
be suppressed."); Spec. ,r 42 ("[W]hen the glass tube 15G is heated in the
etching step P2 or the laminating step P3 to be described later, both end
portions of the glass tube 15G are warped so that the axis 15C between the
fixed portions of the glass tube 15G has a shape obtained by reversing the
catenary curve in the vertical direction."); Spec. ,r 79 ("[S]ince the glass tube
15G may be warped so that the axis 15C has a shape in which the catenary
curve is reversed in the vertical direction in the step of heating the glass tube
such as the etching step P2 or the laminating step P3 ... it is possible to
suppress the bending in which the glass tube 15G is locally bent or warped
while the glass tube 15G is heated. For this reason, the whirling of the glass
tube 15G may be suppressed."); Spec. ,r 67 ("[T]he glass tube 15G is fixed
so that the axis 15C has a shape obtained by reversing the catenary curve in
the vertical direction in the heated state.").
5
Appeal2018-000275
Application 13/628,444
The experimental examples provided in the Specification also
describe preparing optical fiber glass tubes using a modified physical vapor
deposition process in which "the axis of the glass tube has an ideal shape in
which the catenary curve is reversed in the vertical direction" while the glass
tube is rotated and heated to about 2050QC with an oxyhydrogen burner that
traverses the glass tube 80 times. Spec. ,r,r 101-113.
Therefore, the Specification makes clear that the invention is directed
to suppressing bending and concomitant whirling that results from heating a
rotating glass tube while both ends are fixed ( during manufacture of an
optical fiber from the glass tube using modified chemical vapor deposition)
by maintaining the glass tube in a substantially inverted catenary curve
shape in the vertical direction throughout the entirety of the time when the
glass tube is being heated.
Although the Examiner interprets "while the glass tube is heated" as
corresponding to "a point in the course of' heating the glass tube, this
construction is inconsistent with the disclosures provided in the
Specification, and is unduly broad. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--55
(Fed. Cir. 1997) ("While the Board must give the terms their broadest
reasonable construction, the construction cannot be divorced from the
specification and the record evidence."); In re Smith Int'!, Inc., 871 F.3d
1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("The correct inquiry in giving a claim term
its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not
whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the
claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not simply an interpretation
that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is an interpretation that
corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the
6
Appeal2018-000275
Application 13/628,444
specification, i.e., an interpretation that is 'consistent with the
specification."' (quoting Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054)).
Consequently, the Examiner does not show that Glodis's disclosure of
causing a substrate tube 33 to have a central longitudinal axis 310 in the
shape of a straight line during a process for manufacturing a glass preform,
and straightening the tube if it experiences any inadvertent changes in shape,
such as becoming "bowed upward," corresponds to fixing the glass tube
such that an axis of the glass tube has a substantially inverted catenary curve
shape in the vertical direction "while the glass tube is heated," as recited in
claims 1 and 1 7.
It follows that the Examiner does not establish that Glodis discloses
each of the features recited in claims 1 and 17, and we accordingly do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Glodis.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
REVERSED
7