Michael Aaron. Kadar-Kallen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 6, 2020

13840447 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2020)

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.
13/840,447 03/15/2013 Michael Aaron Kadar-Kallen DC-01840 8200
87838 7590 01/06/2020
The Whitaker LLC
4550 Linden Hill Road
Suite 140
Wilmington, DE 19808-2952
EXAMINER
JORDAN, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/06/2020 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 MICHAEL AARON KADAR-KALLEN,
SHELLY ANN BUCHTER, NANCY LEE REESER,
LALITKUMAR BANSAL, DONALD EUGENE DELLINGER, and
DAVID DONALD ERDMAN

____________

Appeal 2019-000373
Application 13/840,447
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1 and 4.3 We have jurisdiction over the appeal

1 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Mar. 15, 2013,
Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed May 24, 2017, the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) dated Aug. 14, 2018, and Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”) filed Oct. 15, 2018.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies TE Connectivity Corporation as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
3 Entry of Appellant’s amendment cancelling claims 2, 3, and 5–21 leaves
claims 1 and 4 in this appeal. Advisory Action dated July 3, 2017.
Appeal 2019-000373
Application 13/840,447

2
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a multi-fiber ferrule connector for
interconnecting optical fibers. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2. The Specification discloses
multiple optical fibers are commonly terminated using multi-fiber
connectors that interconnect the fibers and are core aligned and in physical
contact using a ferrule to achieve optimal transmission. Id. ¶ 2. The
Specification describes the use of an adhesive bonding agent between the
fiber and ferrule during processing followed by cleaving and polishing for a
geometry where the optical fibers extend by a predetermined distance
beyond the end face of the ferrule to establish fiber-to-fiber contact between
opposing optical fibers. Id. ¶ 3. The Specification discloses the use of lenses
to expand the light and make the system less sensitive to dirt on the end
faces such that each fiber is at the corresponding lens’ focal point. Id. ¶ 4.
According to the Specification, providing an epoxy well near the
ferrule wall against which the fibers abut serves to (1) maintain contact with
the fiber ends even if the adhesive fails to affix the fibers to their grooves
and (2) aid the pull strength in a -z direction shown in Figure 2 below. Id.
¶ 5.

Appeal 2019-000373
Application 13/840,447

3
Figure 2 is reproduced below:

Figure 2 is a perspective view of Appellant’s multi-fiber ferrule connector
depicting grooves (that are v-shaped in a cross-sectional profile), an epoxy
well to anchor both adhesive and fibers near the ends of the fibers along the
back face of a front frame and perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the
ferrule’s main surface. Id. ¶¶ 16, 25, 26. Figure 2 also depicts a dovetail
shape of the channel and rear opening cross sections to achieve further
retention of adhesive in the +y direction. Id. ¶ 27.
According to the Specification, cured adhesive pulls away from the
epoxy well’s edges, therefore circular wells depicted in Figure 6 below are
provided to minimize the adverse effects of such shrinkage. Id. ¶ 28.

Appeal 2019-000373
Application 13/840,447

4
Figure 6 is reproduced below:

Figure 6 is a perspective view of Appellant’s multi-fiber ferrule connector
depicting rounded or curved corners on the back face, “Tigger Ears,” and
“T” slot. Id. ¶ 20.
Claims 1 and 4, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief, are illustrative (disputed limitations italicized).
1. A ferrule assembly comprising:
a ferrule body defining a channel, a main surface at the
bottom of said channel, a front frame forward of said channel,
and a rear opening rearward of said channel,
wherein the front frame comprises a front face and a back
face and a plurality of lens, said channel being configured to
receive and secure fibers relative to said plurality of lens;
at least one well located adjacent the back face of the
front frame, said at least one well being contiguous with said

Appeal 2019-000373
Application 13/840,447

5
channel and being in fluid communication with said channel
such that liquid adhesive applied to said channel flows into said
at least one well;
a restrictive opening between said at least one well and
said channel, said restrictive opening limiting egress from said
at least one well, thereby preventing, cured adhesive in said at
least one well from passing through said restrictive opening to
said channel, thereby anchoring said fibers in place on said
main surface.

4. The ferrule assembly of claim 1, wherein said
ferrule body comprises first and second sides on each side of
said channel, and wherein said at least one well comprises
circular wells, one of said wells disposed adjacent the
intersection of said front frame and said first side, and another
of said wells disposed adjacent the intersection of said front
frame and said second side.

ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering
the positions of both the Examiner and Appellant, we are persuaded the
Examiner reversibly erred for the reasons set forth in Appellant’s briefs and
discussed below.
Appeal 2019-000373
Application 13/840,447

6
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Duis4 and Iwama.5 Final Act. 4–9. We
separately address claims 1 and 4 below.

Claim 1
Appellant contends the Examiner’s combination of Duis and Iwama
fails to disclose or suggest the claimed restrictive opening that locks the
adhesive in the well once the adhesive cures. Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant
argues that the front frame and channel of Duis’s device as modified with
Iwama’s frame and lens array does not provide a restrictive opening between
any region. Id. at 7. Appellant asserts that even if the top and bottom
reservoirs identified in the Examiner’s annotated Figure 1 of Iwama provide
flow orthogonal to the fiber/waveguide axes, the Examiner has failed to
identify restrictive openings. Id. at 8. Annotated Figure 1 of Iwama is shown
below. Id.; Final Act. 7.

4 US 2012/0014648 A1, published Jan. 19, 2012.
5 US 5,241,612, issued Aug. 31, 1993.
Appeal 2019-000373
Application 13/840,447

7
Figure 1 of Iwama is reproduced below:

Iwama’s annotated Figure 1 depicts multicore optical connector 1
comprising first connector part 2 and second connector part 3 opposed and
connected by pins 17 fitting holes 16 in the end face of holder 15, plurality
of lenses 11, 11ʹ, holders 15, 15ʹ for holding fiber arrays 7, 7ʹ in which
optical fibers 5, 5ʹ are embedded, and refractive index matching plate 9.
Iwama 2:4–37.
Appellant further argues that the rejection fails to give patentable
weight to the functional language in claim 1 that recites “said at least one
well and said channel are in fluid communication” and “thereby preventing,
cured adhesive in said at least one well from passing through said restrictive
opening to said channel, thereby anchoring said fibers in place on said main
surface.” Appeal Br. 9–10.
The Examiner responds that all of the claimed elements have been
accounted for in the combination of Duis and Iwama because when the
opposing walls of Duis’s longitudinal cavity 114 holds Iwama’s lens array
Appeal 2019-000373
Application 13/840,447

8
13ʹ in the same way Iwama’s “arms” 15ʹ hold lens array 13ʹ, the bottom of
longitudinal cavity 114 forms a floor for the open-ended area that may hold
a curable fluid such as epoxy. Ans. 5. The Examiner also finds that in the
absence of the refractive index matching plate as 9 on the left hand side of
Iwama’s Figure 1, the right hand side provides a well that is then located on
the main surface along the back face of the front frame and the well is
capable of accommodating an epoxy. Id. (citing Iwama 2:35–38).
Regarding a restrictive opening, the Examiner finds flow only occurs
vertically with respect to the connector plane, therefore the opening in the
prior art combination is restrictive as to the direction of flow. Id. at 6.
Regarding claim 1’s functional language, the Examiner finds cured adhesive
does not flow, therefore no structure is given by the claimed “thereby
preventing, cured adhesive in said at least one well from passing through
said restrictive opening to said channel.” Id. at 9. The Examiner determines
that claim 1 does not describe specific shapes and that functional language
does not impart specific shapes to the claim. Id. at 10.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of harmful error. The
Examiner’s rejection does not adequately explain how Duis’s device as
modified by Iwama provides a restrictive opening between the identified
well and the identified channel. We agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 2) that
the functional language recited in the claim provides structure to the
recitation “restrictive opening” such that the interconnection between the
well and the channel serves to mechanically anchor a cured adhesive. Such
structures are described in Appellant’s Specification as acting as “a
mechanical latch” and to minimize adverse effects of shrinkage of the cured
adhesive at the edges of the ferrule. Spec. ¶ 28. The Examiner does not
Appeal 2019-000373
Application 13/840,447

9
adequately explain how the modification of Duis’s device with Iwama’s lens
array would constrain the cured adhesive such that it acts as an anchor.
Simply providing walls to define the direction of flow does not sufficiently
explain how the intersection of the well and channel would provide a
mechanical restraint on the cured adhesive.
In view of the above and for the reasons provided in the Appeal Brief
and the Reply Brief, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over
Duis and Iwama.

Claim 4
The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
combination of Duis and Iwama, but concedes that the combination does not
disclose at least one well comprising circular wells. Final Act. 8–9. The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to use circularly-
shaped wells because Duis provides circular wells with left and right
alignment holes, therefore circular is a known shape for wells. Id. at 9.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4
because Duis’s alignment holes are not in fluid communication with the
channel. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant also argues that if Duis’s alignment holes
were in fluid communication with the channel, the holes would not be
capable of receiving the alignment pin, thus the suggested modification to
Duis would render it unsuitable for its intended purpose. Id.
The Examiner responds that Duis’s alignment holes teach a known
geometry for holes in general, which the Examiner determines is applicable
to other holes, apertures, openings, foramens, wells or the like. Ans. 12. The
Appeal 2019-000373
Application 13/840,447

10
Examiner also finds that the geometry of Iwama’s wells is determined by the
shape of the front face/lens 13, and therefore is “not particularly limited.” Id.
The Examiner’s additional findings regarding the geometry of holes
does not cure the deficiencies discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under
§ 103.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and
4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4 103 Duis, Iwama 1, 4

REVERSED