Yu Lu et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2019

14957221 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2019)

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.
14/957,221 12/02/2015 Yu Lu 02316.2299USC5 1331
23552 7590 12/16/2019
MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
EXAMINER
RADKOWSKI, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2019 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):
USPTO23552@merchantgould.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YU LU, RANDY REAGAN, MICHAEL NOONAN, and
JEFFREY GNIADEK

Appeal 2019-001522
Application 14/957,221
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARK NAGUMO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 3. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CommScope
Technologies LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001522
Application 14/957,221

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to fiber optic networks and
terminations in fiber optic cables (Spec. 1:14–15; Claim 1).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A fiber optic connection device comprising:
a ruggedized multi-fiber connector including a threaded collar,
a plurality of tethers;
a breakout structure that provides an optical fiber transition
from the multi-fiber connector to the tethers, the break-out structure
having a breakout end face defining a breakout surface area, the
tethers extending outwardly from the breakout end face, and
first and second groups of ruggedized port-defining structures
mounted at end of the tethers, the ruggedized port-defining structures
defining ports adapted for receiving single fiber connectors, the first
group of ruggedized port-defining structures being spaced a first
distance from the breakout end face, the second group of ruggedized
port-defining structures being spaced a second distance from the
breakout end face, the first and second distances being different
distances such that the first and second groups of ruggedized port
defining structures are staggered relative to one another, the first and
second groups of ruggedized port-defining structures each defining a
collective end face area that is larger than the breakout surface area.

Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 1 to 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Zimmel (US 2005/0053341 A1, published Mar. 10, 2005)
in view of Adams (US 5,937,950, issued Aug. 17, 1999), and
Mahony (US 6,522,804 B1, published Feb. 18, 2003).
Appellant argues the claims as a group (Appeal Br. 5 to 9). Therefore,
we select claim 1 as representative of the group. 37 CFR §41.37(c)(iv).

Appeal 2019-001522
Application 14/957,221

3
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the rejection of
claim 1 over Zimmel in view of Adams and Mahony are located on pages 4
to 7 of the Final Action.
Appellant argues that the combined teachings of Zimmel, Adams and
Mahony would not have suggested a breakout structure that provides an
optical fiber transition from a multi-fiber connector, which includes a
threaded collar, to a plurality of tethers (Appeal Br. 5). Appellant contends
that Zimmel’s optical fiber splitter 42 is not a breakout structure and splitter
42 does not provide an optical fiber transition from a multi-fiber connector
to a plurality of tethers (Appeal Br. 5). Appellant argues that single optical
fiber 136 is not terminated by a multi-fiber connector (Appeal Br. 5–6).
Appellant contends that there is no reason provided in Zimmel to add a
multi-fiber connector to the device in Zimmel (Appeal Br. 6). Appellant
contends that each of Zimmel’s ribbon cables 144 is optically coupled to a
single input fiber 136 via the splitter 42 (Reply Br. 2). Appellant argues that
there is no reason to add a multi-fiber connector to Zimmel between the
breakout structure 104 and the splitter 42 and no reason is provided in the
record to ruggedize the connection any multi-fiber connection between the
splitter 42 and breakout structure 104 (Reply Br. 2). Appellant contends that
it would be unnecessary to ruggedize any connection because the
components are contained within the housing of module 100 (Reply Br. 2).
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner finds that the
structure in Zimmel between the splitter 42 and the ribbon cables 144
constitutes a multi-fiber connector (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that the
connection would have been ruggedized to provide protection against
Appeal 2019-001522
Application 14/957,221

4
environmental threats, including dirt, moisture, temperature, and vibration
(Ans. 4).
Appellant does not direct us to a definition of what constitutes a
“multi-fiber connector” in the Specification. The Specification describes an
embodiment where a multi-fiber connector constitutes a multi-termination
(MT) connector (Spec. 15:20-25). The Specification describes the MT
connector as a structure that contains multiple optical fibers 972 that may be
connected to fibers in an adjoining structure, such as planar lightwave circuit
(PLC) chip (Spec. 15:5-12). Our understanding of the plain meaning of the
phrase “multi-fiber connector” includes a structure that connects multiple
optical fibers from one structure to another structure or device.
With this claim construction in mind, the Examiner’s finding that the
connection between splitter 42 and the ribbon cables 144 constitutes a multi-
fiber connector is reasonable. Specifically, Zimmel discloses that splitter 42
separates the optical signals carried by the single fiber 136 into up to thirty-
two individual optical signals (¶ 42). Zimmel discloses that each ribbon
cable 144 includes eight fibers 146 (¶ 42). In other words, the multiple fiber
optical cable would require a multi-fiber connector to connect the ribbon
cable to the optical splitter 42. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
argument that the connection between the splitter and ribbon cable would
not be “ruggedized” because the splitter is located within the module
housing 100 (Reply Br. 2). The Examiner reasonably finds that Zimmel
teaches that the fibers and other components of the network are exposed to
extreme conditions related to temperature, dirt, moisture, and vibration (Ans.
4; Zimmel ¶¶ 2, 27). We find that the preponderance of the evidence favors
the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to provide
Appeal 2019-001522
Application 14/957,221

5
ruggedized connections including a well-known threaded connection to
protect the connection from extremes of the environment. Even if the
connection is placed in module 100’s housing, the ruggedized connection
would provide added protection for the environmental concerns raised by
Zimmel.
Appellant argues that Zimmel does not teach port defining cable
connectors or first and second groups of ruggedized port-defining structures
being spaced different distances from a breakout face (Appeal Br. 7). The
Examiner’s rejection states that Zimmel does not disclose these features
(Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds that Adams discloses forming a first and
second staggered array of tethers at different distances from a breakout to
permit connection to the cable in either the general vicinity or at remote
locations (Final Act. 4-5). The Examiner relies on Mahony to teach that
optical drops for a fiber optic network occur at different locations from the
outside cable terminals that link central offices to subscriber premises (Final
Act. 5). The Examiner finds that Zimmel teaches conventional ruggedized
connections include threaded connections and port defining structures (i.e.,
119 in Zimmel) (Ans. 4, 5).
Appellant contends that Adams is directed to electrical wires, not
optical fibers (Appeal Br. 7). Appellant argues that Adams does not teach or
suggest that the first and second groups of connectors 52a to 52d are spaced
different distances from a breakout end face of the cable block 48 (Appeal
Br. 7). Appellant argues that Adams does not disclose customizing the cable
lengths or having two sets of cables with different lengths (Appeal Br. 8).
Appellant argues that Mahony does not provide an optical fiber transition
from a multi-fiber connector to a plurality of tethers (Appeal Br. 8).
Appeal 2019-001522
Application 14/957,221

6
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s Official Notice that fibers 124 in
Mahony would have been different lengths (i.e., customized for each of the
premises hooked up to the fiber optic network) (Appeal Br. 9).
The Examiner finds that Adams teachings regarding a furcated wire
network are relevant to an optical fiber system (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds
that the wire and optical fiber system each have breakout structures to
downstream tether sections to connect to components at varying distances
from the breakout structure (Ans. 5). In other words, the Examiner finds
that fiber optic system of Adams, Zimmel and Appellant’s claimed invention
are in the same field of endeavor (i.e., communication networks). Appellant
does not respond to this finding of the Examiner (Reply Br. generally).
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s analysis on pages 3 to 6 of the Answer. The
Examiner finds that Zimmel teaches the subject matter of claim 1, except for
the different length tethers (Ans. 2). The Examiner finds that Adams teaches
a cascading structure of tethers of different effective lengths (i.e., tethers 24
and upstream tether section 28 and tethers 24 separately terminate at
connectors 52) (Ans. 5). The Examiner relies on Mahony to show a
practical application where a fiber optic connection device having a breakout
structure and a plurality of tethered connectors, as taught by Zimmel, and
additionally having cascaded or staggered tether lengths, as taught by
Adams, may be used (Ans. 6). In other words, we find that the Examiner
supports the Official Notice by citing to Adams that shows tethers having
different lengths. The Examiner finds that Zimmel teaches optical fiber
connectors 119, which constitute port-defining structures (Ans. 4).
Therefore, we determine that the Examiner has established by the
Appeal 2019-001522
Application 14/957,221

7
preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Zimmel,
Adams and Mahony would have suggested the subject matter of claim 1.
On this record, Appellant has not shown reversible error in the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 to 3 § 103 Zimmel,
Adams, Mahony
1 to 3

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED