Glenair, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 6, 2022

2021001966 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2022)

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. 16/379,801 04/10/2019 Samer J. Farhat GLNR09NP 7958 23892 7590 01/06/2022 DAVID S ALAVI 2852 WILLAMETTE ST #402 EUGENE, OR 97405-8200 EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHAU N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2847 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/06/2022 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): dsalavi@gmail.com dsalavi@northwestpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAMER J. FARHAT, GUIDO HUNZIKER, JOHN N. NGUYEN, and STEPHEN D. BOARD Appeal 2021-001966 Application 16/379,801 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-18, 20-27, and 29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Glenair, Inc. (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2021-001966 Application 16/379,801 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an electromagnetic shielding material. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An electromagnetic shielding material comprising multiple strands of an electrically conductive yarn that are arranged as a braided, knitted, or woven mesh, wherein: (a) each strand of the electrically conductive yarn comprises one or more electrically conductive filaments; (b) each electrically conductive filament comprises a core of a first electrically conductive material surrounded by a sheath of a second electrically conductive material different from the first electrically conductive material; (c) the first electrically conductive material exceeds the second electrically conductive material with respect to electrical conductivity; (d) the second electrically conductive material exceeds the first electrically conductive material with respect to one or both of tensile strength or corrosion resistance; (e) the braided, woven, or knitted mesh is arranged as a flexible tube; and (f) the flexible tube exhibits screening attenuation greater than about 30 dB for electrical signal frequencies above 500 MHz. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Yamamoto US 4,537,808 Aug. 27, 1985 Harada US 5,118, 905 June 2, 1992 Fazakas US 2007/0199730 A1 Aug. 30, 2007 Lee US 2013/0233594 A1 Sept. 12, 2013 Huang US 2014/0251651 A1 Sept. 11, 2014 Hongo US 10,499,550 B2 Dec. 3, 2019 Appeal 2021-001966 Application 16/379,801 3 The prior art relied upon by the Appellant is: Name Reference Date Mettes US 4,868,565 Sept. 19, 1989 REJECTIONS The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: 1) claims 6, 14, and 20-27 over Yamamoto in view of Fazakas; 2) claims 1- 9, 14, and 29 over Harada in view of Yamamoto; 3) claims 10-13 over Harada in view of Yamamoto and Lee; 4) claims 15 and 17 over Harada in view of Yamamoto and Hongo; and 5) claims 16 and 18 over Harada in view of Yamamoto and Huang. OPINION We need address only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1 and 6.2 Rejection over Yamamoto in view of Fazakas Yamamoto discloses a supporting member or spring material having both good electrical conductivity and high mechanical strength (col. 1, ll. 6- 8, 27-29). The material can comprise a copper core (2) and a stainless steel clad material (3) (col. 2, ll. 7-15; Fig. 2). Fazakas discloses “a current conductor, which is made of braided wire and which is intended particularly for use with high-density currents” (¶ 1), and teaches that “[b]raided wires also form the shielding sheaths of shielded cables” (¶ 4). The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the filament of Yamamoto et al. to form a braided 2 The Examiner does not rely upon Lee, Hongo or Huang for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in the references applied to the independent claims (Final 7-8). Appeal 2021-001966 Application 16/379,801 4 tube material as taught by Fazakas to form a current conductor having improved electrical and mechanical properties” (Final 3). Rejection over Harada in view of Yamamoto Harada discloses “a coaxial cable useful as the feeder cable of an automobile antenna” (col. 1, ll. 6-7). The cable comprises, as the external conductor for blocking external noise, “a plain stitch wire tube made by braiding a plurality of zonal conducting wires each having an [sic] flattened cross-section” (col. 1, ll. 18-21; col. 2, ll. 24-27). The Examiner concludes: “It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the composite filament taught by Yamamoto et al. for the filament of Harada to provide a shielding material that has improved electrical conductivity and mechanical strength” (Final 6). Mettes Reference Submitted by Appellant Mettes discloses a shielded cable (11) comprising a tubular shield (17) made of composite wires (27) each having a Metglas® amorphous metal core (29) surrounded by a high-conductivity (silver-coated copper) cladding (31, 33) (col. 3, ll. 30-31, 50-63; Figs. 1, 2). Mettes teaches that the high- conductivity cladding is efficient for conductivity shielding and complementing the high permeability of the amorphous metal wire at least partially due to conductivity through skin-effect (i.e., conductivity effected mostly at the surface and not in the interior of the conductive wire) (col. 2, ll. 54-62). Appellant’s Response to Both Rejections The Appellant argues that “[n]o person of ordinary skill would be led to construct a braided electromagnetic shielding material for use at frequencies above 500 MHz using filaments having a higher-conductive core Appeal 2021-001966 Application 16/379,801 5 and a lower-conductive sheath to meet the limitations of Claim 1, when the prior art [(Mettes)] clearly and specifically points out the desirability of the opposite arrangement” (Appeal Br. 5). Examiner’s Response to Appellant’s Argument The Examiner does not address Mettes. The Examiner states: “Examiner already pointed out in the 07/16/2020 Advisory Action that the Mettes reference is NOT relied upon in any rejection in the 05/04/2020 Final Action, NOT relied upon in any rejection of appeal claims. Applicant's arguments, in this brief, do not address any of the applied references in the 05/04/2020 Final Action” (Ans. 5). “[T]he prior art as a whole must be considered.” In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Mettes is part of the prior art as a whole. The Examiner, therefore, reversibly erred by not addressing Mettes. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 6, 14, 20-27 103 Yamamoto, Fazakas 6, 14, 20-27 1-9, 14, 29 103 Harada, Yamamoto 1-9, 14, 29 10-13 103 Harada, Yamamoto, Lee 10-13 15, 17 103 Harada, Yamamoto, Hongo 15, 17 16, 18 103 Harada, Yamamoto, Huang 16, 18 Overall Outcome 1-18, 20- 27, 29 Appeal 2021-001966 Application 16/379,801 6 REVERSED