CommScope Technologies LLC et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 9, 2021

2020006066 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2021)

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.
15/681,503 08/21/2017 James Joseph Eberle JR. 02316.2748USC1/
NT-00373
3392
142510 7590 09/09/2021
M&G CommScope
P.O. Box 2903
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
LAM, HUNG Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2021 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):
uspto142510@merchantgould.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES JOSEPH EBERLE JR.
and FRANCISCUS KAREL MARIA VAN GEIJN
____________

Appeal 2020-006066
Application 15/681,503
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3–6, 8, and 13. 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 Commscope Technologies LLC as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-006066
Application 15/681,503

2
The invention generally relates to “a connector system that provides
discriminating mating among similar, but different, plugs and receptacles by
using a system of geometrically matched connector components which
allows certain combinations of plugs and receptacles (i.e., mating pairs) to
mate while preventing other combinations from mating.” Spec. 3. Claim 1
illustrates the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A plug to be inserted into a receptacle, the plug and
receptacle having a keying mechanism including at least one
key and at least one slot, the receptacle defining the at least one
slot, the at least one slot having a first keying geometry, the
plug comprising:

a ferrule that holds a number of optical fibers; and

a body having an exterior defining the at least one key,
the at least one key having a second keying geometry that
corresponds to the first keying geometry of the at least one slot
such that the at least one key and the at least one slot are mating
pairs, the second keying geometry identifying the number of the
optical fibers held by the ferrule.

Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).

Appellant requests review of the following rejections from the
Examiner’s Final Action (see generally Appeal Brief):2
I. claims 1, 3, and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Cunningham (US 6,304,352 B1, issued October 16, 2001);

II. claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shigehara (US 2012/0163757 A1, published June 28,
2012) and Cunningham; and

2 Appellant requested an Oral Hearing in the Appeal Brief. Appeal Br. 1.
However, Appellant elected not to pursue an oral hearing in a
communication dated August 12, 2021.
Appeal 2020-006066
Application 15/681,503

3
III. claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Shigehara, Cunningham, and Kozischek (US 2009/0097846 A1, published
April 16, 2009).

OPINION

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(Rejection I)

Appellant presents arguments only for claim 1 and relies on the same
line of arguments to address the rejection of claims 3 and 5. See generally
Appeal Br. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the subject
matter claimed and focus our attention on this claim. Claims 3 and 5 stand
or fall with claim 1.
After review of the respective positions Appellant and the Examiner
provide, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1, 3–8, 12,
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) for the reasons the reasons the
Examiner presents. We add the following for emphasis.
Claim 1 (Anticipation)
Claim 1 recites a plug connector structure. Specifically, claim 1
recites a plug comprising a ferrule that holds a number of optical fibers and a
body having an exterior defining at least one key, the at least one key having
a keying geometry identifying the number of the optical fibers held by the
ferrule. The keying geometry of the plug is intended to correspond to
another keying geometry located in a receptacle that receives the plug when
forming a mating pair.
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action for a complete
statement of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claim 1. Final Act. 3–
4. Briefly, the Examiner finds Cunningham’s Figure 2 embodiment
Appeal 2020-006066
Application 15/681,503

4
describes a plug 104 that anticipates the subject matter of claim 1. Final
Act. 3–4; Cunningham col. 6, ll. 30–50, and Figure 2.
Appellant argues the Cunningham’s keying ensures the connector 104
is correctly spatially oriented within the transceiver 102. Appeal Br. 6; see
also Cunningham Figure 2. However, Appellant contends Cunningham does
not disclose that the keying structure 121, 122 identifies the number of fibers
held by a connector ferrule. Id. According to Appellant, Cunningham is
silent regarding any correlation between the keying feature and the number
of fibers. Id. Appellant further asserts Cunningham does not indicate that
the keying structure would change for the different types of connectors and,
thus, Cunningham’s disclosed keying structure does not correspond to the
number of fibers of the connector. Id. at 7. In support of this assertion,
Appellant points to Cunningham’s disclosure that “[t]he connector may be
of any conventional form for fibre-to-fibre connection. A duplex SC
connector is an appropriate form of connector for this purpose, though
alternative connector types, such as MT, can also be used.” Appeal Br. 6–7;
Cunningham col. 6, ll. 31–35. Thus, Appellant argues Cunningham’s
keying structure does not indicate the number of fibers in the connector. Id.
Appellant further contends the cited portion of Cunningham describes the
use of the duplex SC connector only as a preferred embodiment. Appeal Br.
7.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify error in the Examiner’s finding
of anticipation.
In order to anticipate, a reference must identify something falling
within the claimed subject matter with sufficient specificity to constitute a
description thereof within the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 102. In re
Appeal 2020-006066
Application 15/681,503

5
Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317 (CCPA 1978). In evaluating references, it is
proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references
but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
The premise of Appellant’s arguments is based on Cunningham’s
disclosure at column 6, lines 31–35. Namely, the premise is Cunningham
uses the same connector regardless of the number of fibers held in the ferrule
of Cunningham’s plug. Appellant’s arguments misapprehend Cunningham’s
disclosure.
As we note above, the pertinent portion of Cunningham’s disclosure
states “[t]he connector may be of any conventional form for fibre-to-fibre
connection. A duplex SC connector is an appropriate form of connector for
this purpose, though alternative connector types, such as MT, can also be
used.” Cunningham, col. 6, ll. 31–35. As Appellant acknowledges,
Cunningham addresses connecting a number of different fiber arrangements.
Appeal Br. 6–7 (“Cunningham discloses that the connector 104 can be a
duplex SC connector (i.e., a connector having two fibers), an MT connector
(i.e., a connector having up to twelve fibers), or an alternative type
connector (i.e., a connector with an unspecified fiber count).”); see also
Reply Br. 1–2. Thus, one skilled in the art would have reasonably inferred
from this disclosure that Cunningham describes using the appropriate
connector to ensure the appropriate fiber to fiber connection. In other
words, Cunningham is not limited to a single connector for all fiber
arrangements as Appellant argues. Appeal Br. 6–7. As a result, the use of a
duplex SC connector would identify the number of the optical fibers held by
the ferrule as two while the use of an MT connector would identify the
Appeal 2020-006066
Application 15/681,503

6
number of the optical fibers held by the ferrule as up to 12. That is, one
skilled in the art would have reasonably inferred that Cunningham’s
disclosed connectors (keying structures) also serve to identify the number of
fibers handled by the connector as claimed.
In view of this, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Cunningham’s Figure 2 embodiment anticipates the subject matter of claim
1. Appellant has not explained adequately why Cunningham’s disclosure
does not describe a plug having a keying structure that serves to identify the
number of the optical fibers held by a ferrule. Appellant has not provided
any evidence or persuasive line of technical reasoning to rebut the
Examiner’s reasonable finding that Cunningham’s Figure 2 embodiment
anticipates the claimed invention. Final Act. 3–4; see also Ans. 4–5. Thus,
on this record, Appellant has not adequately shown patentable distinction of
the claimed invention over the prior art.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1,
3, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the reasons the Examiner presents and
we give above.

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)(Rejections II and III)
For these rejections, Appellant presents arguments only for
independent claim 1 (Rejection II) and dependent 4 (Rejection III). See
generally Appeal Br. Appellant relies on the same line of arguments to
address the rejection of the remaining claims. Id. Accordingly, claims 3, 5,
6, 8, and 13 stand or fall with claims 1 and 4.
Both rejections are based principally on the combined teachings of
Shigehara and Cunningham. See generally Final Act. In discussing both
Appeal 2020-006066
Application 15/681,503

7
rejections, Appellant again argues “Cunningham [] does not disclose or
suggest a keying geometry that identifies the number of optical fibers held
by the ferrule.” Appeal Br. 8, 10. However, as we discuss above, this is not
the case. Thus, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness for the reasons the
Examiner presents and we give above.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
1, 3–6, 8, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons the Examiner
presents and we give above.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1, 3–6, 8, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) are affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY

In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5 102(b) Cunningham 1, 3, 5
1, 3, 5, 6,
8, 13
103(a) Shigehara,
Cunningham
1, 3, 5, 6,
8, 13

4 103(a) Shigehara,
Cunningham,
Kozischek
4
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–6, 8,
13

Appeal 2020-006066
Application 15/681,503

8
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