BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANYDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 29, 202014771998 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/771,998 09/01/2015 Albert RAFEL PORTI 4359.63WOUS01 5617 135778 7590 05/29/2020 Patterson Thuente Pedersen, P.A. 4800 IDS CENTER 80 SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2100 EXAMINER LIU, LI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2636 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2020 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): efsuspto@ptslaw.com rabe@ptslaw.com rausch@ptslaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALBERT RAFEL PORTI, NEIL JAMES PARKIN, and STEPHEN CHARLES BEAUMONT Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 Technology Center 2600 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 6–12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard the appeal on April 15, 2020. We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “a communications network using digital subscriber line (DSL) technology.” Spec. 1:11–12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A communications network comprising: a main primary network node, including a main Optical Line Terminal (OLT), connected to a plurality of secondary network nodes, each including an Optical Network Unit/Terminal (ONU/ONT), via a plurality of point to point optical fiber connections; and a standby primary network node, including a standby OLT, connected to the plurality of secondary network nodes via a plurality of point to multi-point optical fiber connections. Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Xu US 2002/0071149 A1 June 13, 2002 Chen US 2009/0142059 A1 June 4, 2009 Zheng US 2012/0134664 A1 May 31, 2012 Smith US 2013/0121684 A1 May 16, 2013 T. Koonen, “Fiber to the Home/Fiber to the Premises: What, Where, and When? The solution may be direct fiber to each home, or shared multiplexed fiber links, or hybrid fiber-copper, -coax, or, perhaps, radio- over-fiber,” Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 94, No. 5, May 2006, pp. 911– 934. M. Hajduczenia, S. Chengbin, Z. Zhen, H. ElBakoury, S. Kozaki, M. Matsuoka, “Resilience and Service Protection for Ethernet Passive Optical Networks in SIEPON,” IEEE Communications Magazine, September 2012, pp. 118–126. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7–12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Xu, and Hajduczenia. Non-Final Act. 12–20. Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Xu, Hajduczenia, and Smith. Non- Final Act. 21–22. Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Xu, Hajduczenia, Chen, and Koonen. Non-Final Act. 22–23. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7–11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Xu and Hajduczenia. Non-Final Act. 23–29. Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Xu, Hajduczenia, and Smith. Non-Final Act. 29–31. Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 4 Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Xu, Hajduczenia, Chen, and Koonen. Non-Final Act. 31–32. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7–11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Zheng and Hajduczenia. Non-Final Act. 32–37. Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Zheng, Hajduczenia, and Smith. Non-Final Act. 37–39. Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Zheng, Hajduczenia, Chen, and Koonen. Non-Final Act. 39–40. Claims 1–4 and 7–12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Smith and Hajduczenia. Non-Final Act. 40–46. Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Smith, Hajduczenia, Chen, and Koonen. Non-Final Act. 46–47. OPINION The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7–12 over AAPA, Xu, and Hajduczenia The Examiner finds AAPA, Xu, and Hajduczenia teach all limitations of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 12–15; see also Ans. 38–66. In particular, the Examiner finds AAPA teaches all limitations of claim 1 except for “a standby primary network node, including a standby OLT, connected to the plurality of secondary network nodes via a plurality of point to multi-point optical fiber connections” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 13 (citing AAPA Fig. 2); see also Ans. 39–40 (citing MPEP § 2129). In particular, the Examiner finds Xu teaches point-to-point optical fiber connections (see Xu Fig. 4, APON interface module 301a connected to optical switch 802/splitter 803) and point-to-multipoint optical fiber Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 5 connections (see Xu Fig. 4, APON interface module 301b connected to optical switch 802/splitter 803). Non-Final Act. 13–14. The Examiner finds Xu “does not expressly show that the [APON interface modules] are directly connected to an ONU.” Non-Final Act. 14. The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to directly connect the APON interface modules 301a, 301b to an ONU 103 because “to just remove the other N-1 ONU[s] and the switch/splitter [802/803] does not require undue experiment[ation].” Non-Final Act. 14. For support, the Examiner finds AAPA discloses “each working (active) line card (210) of the active OLT (200) and the standby line car[d] of the standby OLT (200’) is directly connected to one ONU (300).” Non-Final Act. 14. The Examiner further finds Hajduczenia discloses “point-to- multipoint is more cost-effective.” Non-Final Act. 15; see Hajduczenia 120 (“ln EPON, link-level reliability can easily be guaranteed using tree or trunk protection mechanisms, where the quantity of deployed redundant equipment is minimized.”), 122 (illustrating tree protection in Figure 5(b)); see also Xu ¶ 13 (“[T]here is a need for a fault protection method and architecture for APON that is cost effective for FTTH applications.). The Examiner reasons “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the teachings of Xu et al and Hajduczenia et al to the system/method of AAPA so that a reliable cost-effective PON system for FTTH/FTTP/FTTCab can be obtained.” Non-Final Act. 15. Appellant’s present the following principal arguments: i. “There is no rule establishing that ‘known’ structures are prior art, nor has Appellant labeled FIG. 2 or the corresponding description as Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 6 ‘prior art.’ The Examiner’s assertion that FIG. 2 is Applicant-Admitted Prior Art is therefore inconsistent with MPEP § 2129.” Appeal Br. 21 n.1; see also Reply Br. 4–5 (“The Examiner’s conclusion that anything called ‘known’ must be prior art, even after Appellant pointed out this section of the MPEP specifically, is exactly the type of conclusion prohibited by Reading[& Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp., 748 F.2d 645, 650 (Fed. Cir. 1984)].”). ii. There is no motivation to combine the references. See Appeal Br. 20–29. “None of these references teaches a primary node that is point to point and a standby primary node that is point to multipoint, as claimed.” Appeal Br. 27. Regarding Xu, “[t]here is no reasoned rationale for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a point to multipoint system such as the one disclosed in Xu by pruning all but one ONU from each splitter.” Appeal Br. 27. “Picking and choosing the point to point primary node of the AAPA and the point to multipoint standby node of Xu is therefore improper because Xu only functions if both primary and standby nodes are of the same type.” Appeal Br. 28 (citing Xu ¶ 36); see also Xu ¶ 36 (“The advantage of this method is that all equalization data for the ONUs 103 associated with each working APON interface module 301a are readily available in the CCC memory. This will lead to fast protection switching.”), Appeal Br. 31 (“[T]he PON(W)s and PON(P) of Xu must be in the same place and use exactly the same fiber paths to the ONUs, without which equalization data is not usable.”), Reply Br. 9–11 (“[B]oth standby and working connections of Xu are point to multipoint, and operate in exactly the same manner”), 13–14 (“[T]he PON(W)s and PON(P) of Xu must be in Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 7 the same place and use exactly the same fiber paths to the ONUs, without which equalization data is not usable.”). Regarding Hajduczenia, “[p]icking and choosing the point to point primary node of the AAPA and the point to multipoint standby node of Hajduczenia is therefore improper as they are totally incompatible.” Appeal Br. 28 (citing Hajduczenia 122); see also Hajduczenia 122 (“[A] single OLT can act as a working OLT for some ONUs while simultaneously acting as a standby OLT for other ONUs, allowing the load to be balanced across two PON instances.”). iii. There is no prima facie obviousness. See Appeal Br. 29–33. Regarding Xu, “the PON(W)s and PON(P) of Xu must be in the same place and use exactly the same fiber paths to the ONUs, without which equalization data is not usable.” Appeal Br. 31 (citing Xu ¶ 36); see also Xu ¶ 36 (“The advantage of this method is that all equalization data for the ONUs 103 associated with each working APON interface module 301a are readily available in the CCC memory. This will lead to fast protection switching.”), Reply Br. 9–11 (“[B]oth standby and working connections of Xu are point to multipoint, and operate in exactly the same manner”), 13–14 (“[T]he PON(W)s and PON(P) of Xu must be in the same place and use exactly the same fiber paths to the ONUs, without which equalization data is not usable.”). iv. A connection from a linecard to a group of ONUs is not a point to point connection. See Appeal Br. 31–32. We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and in the Reply Brief. We do not see any reversible error in the Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 8 Examiner’s findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Regarding Appellant’s argument (i), we recognize that there must be a statutory basis before one’s own work may be considered as prior art. According to the MPEP, “the examiner must determine whether the subject matter identified as ‘prior art’ is applicant’s own work, or the work of another. In the absence of another credible explanation, examiners should treat such subject matter as the work of another.” MPEP § 2129 (emphasis added). Appellant’s Specification discloses “Figure 1 shows a schematic depiction of a known FTTCab network.” Spec. 5:18 (emphasis added). Appellant’s Specification discloses “Figure 2 shows a schematic depiction of a known resilient FTTCab network.” Spec. 5:19 (emphasis added). Given these disclosures in Appellant’s Specification describing the contents of Figures 1 and 2 as “known,” we find the contents of Figures 1 and 2 are the work of another and are prior art. See Spec. 5:18–19. In making this finding, we emphasize that the record does not include another credible explanation or other evidence, such as declaration testimony, of Figures 1 and 2 describing Appellant’s own work. See Appeal Br. 21 n.1; see also Reply Br. 4–5. Regarding Appellant’s arguments (ii) and (iii), we find AAPA, Xu, and Hajduczenia describe all limitations of claim 1. First, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s finding that AAPA teaches all limitations of claim 1 except for “a standby primary network node, including a standby OLT, connected to the plurality of secondary network nodes via a plurality of point to multi-point optical fiber connections” (emphasis added) as recited Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 9 in claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 13 (citing AAPA Fig. 2); see also Ans. 39–40 (citing MPEP § 2129). Xu’s Figure 4 discloses each APON interface module 301a (PON(W)) connected to an optical switch 802/1:N splitter 803, which is connected to N ONUs 103. See Xu Fig. 4. Xu’s Figure 4 further discloses APON interface module 301b (PON(P)) connected to 1:n splitter 801, having an output connected to each optical switch 802/1:N splitter 803. See Xu Fig. 4. A skilled artisan would have recognized that setting N=1 would have resulted in each optical switch 802 having an output connected to a single ONU 103 (omitting each splitter 803). Such arrangement provides point to point optical fiber connections (APON interface modules 301a), and provides point to multi-point optical fiber connections (APON interface module 301b). See Xu Figure 4, Non-Final Act. 14 (“[R]emoving the other N-1 ONU[s] and the switch/splitter [802/803] does not require undue experiment[ation].). A skilled artisan would have further recognized that it would have been an obvious variation to omit optical switches 802 and provide a pair of connections at the location (node) of each existing ONU 103. See Xu Fig. 4, AAPA Fig. 2 (linecards 310, 312 in the same cabinet 300), Non-Final Act. 14 (“[AAPA in Figure 2 discloses] each working (active) line card (210) of the active OLT (200) and the standby line car[d] of the standby OLT (200’) is directly connected to [first and second linecards 310, 312].”), KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”). Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 10 With these modifications to Xu’s Figure 4 (setting N=1 and omitting splitter 803, omitting switch 802 and adding a co-located optical connection at each existing ONU 103), Xu’s APON interface modules 301a provide point to point optical fiber connections to each ONU 103, and APON interface module 301b provides point to multiple point optical fiber connections to additional co-located optical connections. See Xu Fig. 4. Non-Final Act. 14. Finally, a skilled artisan would have further recognized that it would have been an obvious variation to have Xu’s APON interface modules 301a (PON(W)) in a first OLT, and Xu’s APON interface module 301b (PON(P)) in a second OLT, resulting in an arrangement falling within the scope of claim 1 because AAPA Figure 2 depicts first OLT 200 and second OLT 200’ for main and standby connections. Put another way, a skilled artisan would modify AAPA Figure 2 in light of Xu (as modified) because “point-to- multipoint is more cost-effective,” resulting in the arrangement falling within the scope of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 15; see also Hajduczenia 120 (“ln EPON, link-level reliability can easily be guaranteed using tree or trunk protection mechanisms, where the quantity of deployed redundant equipment is minimized.”), 122 (illustrating tree protection in Figure 5(b)); Xu ¶ 13 (“[T]here is a need for a fault protection method and architecture for APON that is cost effective for FTTH applications.”). Regarding Appellant’s arguments with respect to Xu and setting N=1, in reaching our decision, we emphasize that in considering the disclosure of a reference, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference 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 Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 11 (CCPA 1968). To the extent Xu’s Figure 4 does not state that N may be set to 1, one skilled in the art would have recognized that N may be set to 1, and then there would be no need for splitter 803. See Preda, 401 F.2d at 826; see also Non-Final Act. 14. Regarding Appellant’s arguments with respect to Xu’s equalization data, we do not see reversible error. Xu discloses [t]he equalization data obtained for the standby module will be stored in a memory in the CCC. The advantage of this method is that all equalization data for the ONUs 103 associated with each working APON interface module 301a are readily available in the CCC memory. This will lead to fast protection switching.” Xu ¶ 36. However, Xu describes this procedure as “[a]n alternative procedure called pre-ranging.” Xu ¶ 36 (emphasis added). In addition to this alternative procedure, Xu also discloses “[c]onventional ranging of ONUs is an inherently slow process.” Xu ¶ 35. Thus, Xu discloses conventional ranging and discloses alternative pre-ranging. Xu ¶¶ 35–36. To the extent the pre-ranging procedure in Xu would have been unsuitable for a variation where Xu’s APON interface modules 301a (PON(W)) are in a first OLT, and Xu’s APON interface module 301b (PON(P)) is in a second OLT, we find Xu’s conventional ranging would be suitable because pre-ranging need not be performed. Regarding Appellant’s arguments with respect to Hajduczenia and load balancing related features, we do not see reversible error. In reaching our decision, Hajduczenia supports the reasoning to use a pair of OLTs with point to multipoint at the second OLT because “point-to-multipoint is more cost-effective.” Non-Final Act. 15; see also Hajduczenia 120 (“ln EPON, link-level reliability can easily be guaranteed using tree or trunk protection mechanisms, where the quantity of deployed redundant equipment is Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 12 minimized.”), 122 (illustrating tree protection in Figure 5(b)). We do not agree that the protection mechanisms of Hajduczenia require features that would preclude the use of point to multipoint at the second OLT as claimed. Finally, regarding Appellant’s argument (iv), we do not see reversible error because AAPA, Xu, and Hajduczenia teach the arrangement falling within the scope of claim 1 for reasons explained above. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over AAPA, Xu, and Hajduczenia. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, and 7–12, which are not separately argued with particularity. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 3 over AAPA, Xu, Hajduczenia, and Smith Appellant does not present separate arguments for this ground of rejection. See Appeal Br. 8–33; see also Reply Br. 4–14. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 6 over AAPA, Xu, Hajduczenia, Chen, and Koonen Appellant does not present separate arguments for this ground of rejection. See Appeal Br. 8–33; see also Reply Br. 4–14. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7–11 over Xu and Hajduczenia Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 13 The Examiner finds Xu and Hajduczenia teach all limitations of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 23–25. In particular, the Examiner finds Xu teaches most limitations of claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 23–24; see also Xu Fig. 4. The Examiner finds Xu “does not expressly show that the [APON interface modules] are directly connected to an ONU.” Non-Final Act. 24; see also Xu Fig. 4. The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to directly connect the APON interface modules 301a, 301b to an ONU 103 because “to just remove the other N-1 ONU[s] and the switch/splitter [802/803] does not require undue experiment[ation].” Non-Final Act. 24. The Examiner finds Hajduczenia discloses first and second OLTs and an optical splitter with outputs directly connected to ONUs. See Non-Final Act. 24; see also Hajduczenia 122 (Figure 5(b)). The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the teachings of Hajduczenia et al to the system/method of Xu et al so that [] each working PON OLT is connected to one specific ONU among a plurality [of] ONUs, and the standby PON OLT is connected to the plurality of ONUs, and a desired reliable cost- effective PON system for FTTH/FTTP/FTTCab can be obtained. Final Act. 24–25. Appellant’s principal arguments for this ground of rejection are those arguments discussed above, excluding the arguments relating to AAPA because this ground of rejection does not rely on AAPA. See Appeal Br. 8– 33; see also Reply Br. 4–14. For this ground of rejection, we see reversible error. Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 14 Specifically, setting N=1 in Xu would have resulted in each optical switch 802 having an output connected to a single ONU 103 (omitting each splitter 803). See Xu Fig. 4. However, the Examiner’s findings based on Xu and Hajduczenia do not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would have further modified Xu to omit optical switches 802 to result in multiple point to point connections from Xu’s OLT to the ONUs. See Non-Final Act. 24– 25. Although AAPA depicts linecards 310, 312 in the same cabinet 300, this ground of rejection does not rely on AAPA. To the extent Hajduczenia discloses tree protection (multiple PON interfaces in an ONU), the Examiner does not appear to present findings or reasoning directed to modifying Xu based on these disclosures in Hajduczenia. See Non-Final Act. 24–25. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Xu and Hajduczenia. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, and 7– 10, which depend from claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, which recites similar limitations as claim 1. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3 and 12 over Xu, Hajduczenia, and Smith Claims 3 depends indirectly from claim 1, and claim 12 depends from claim 11. For reasons explained above when addressing claims 1 and 11, we, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 12. Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 15 The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 6 over Xu, Hajduczenia, Chen, and Koonen Claim 6 depends indirectly from claim 1. For reasons explained above when addressing claim 1, we, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7–11 over Zheng and Hajduczenia The Examiner finds Zheng and Hajduczenia teach all limitations of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 32–33; see also Ans. 46–47 (discussing Zheng). In particular, the Examiner finds Zheng teaches most limitations of claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 32–33; see also Zheng Fig. 3(b). The Examiner finds Zheng “does not expressly show that the OLT i and OLT n+1 are directly connected to an ONU.” Non-Final Act. 33; see also Zheng Fig. 3(b). The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to directly connect the OLT i and OLT n+1 to an ONU because “to just remove some ONUs and the splitters (OS) does not require undue experiment[ation].” Non-Final Act. 33. The Examiner finds Hajduczenia discloses first and second OLTs and an optical splitter with outputs directly connected to ONUs. See Non-Final Act. 33; see also Hajduczenia 122 (Figure 5(b)). The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the teachings of Hajduczenia et al to the system/method of Zheng et al so that [] each working OLT is connected to one specific ONU among a plurality [of] ONUs, and the standby PON OLT is connected to the plurality of ONUs, and a desired reliable cost-effective PON system for FTTH/FTTP/FTTCab can be obtained. Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 16 Non-Final Act. 33. Appellant presents the following principal argument: “[L]ike Xu, the advantages of Zheng are only possible because the primary node and the standby primary node function in exactly the same way.” Appeal Br. 28– 29; see also Appeal Br. 24–25 (“Zheng likewise relates exclusively point to multipoint connections.”), Reply Br. 10–11. For this ground of rejection, we see reversible error. Specifically, setting X=1, Y=1, and Z=1 in Zheng (Fig. 3(b)) would have resulted in each optical splitter OS having an output connected to a single ONU. See Zheng Fig. 3(b). However, the Examiner’s findings based on Zheng and Hajduczenia do not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would have further modified Zheng to omit optical splitters OS to result in multiple point to point connections from Zheng’s OLT to the ONUs. See Non-Final Act. 33. Although AAPA depicts linecards 310, 312 in the same cabinet 300, this ground of rejection does not rely on AAPA. To the extent Hajduczenia discloses tree protection (multiple PON interfaces in an ONU), the Examiner does not appear to present findings or reasoning directed to modifying Zheng based on these disclosures in Hajduczenia. See Non-Final Act. 33. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Zheng and Hajduczenia. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, and 7– 10, which depend from claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, which recites similar limitations as claim 1. Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 17 The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3 and 12 over Zheng, Hajduczenia, and Smith Claims 3 depends indirectly from claim 1, and claim 12 depends from claim 11. For reasons explained above when addressing claims 1 and 11, we, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 12. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 6 over Zheng, Hajduczenia, Chen, and Koonen Claim 6 depends indirectly from claim 1. For reasons explained above when addressing claim 1, we, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–4 and 7–12 over Smith and Hajduczenia The Examiner finds Smith and Hajduczenia teach all limitations of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 40–42; see also Ans. 47–50 (discussing Smith). In particular, the Examiner finds Smith teaches most limitations of claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 40–41; see also Smith Fig. 2. The Examiner finds Smith “does not expressly show that the LTs are directly connected to an ONT.” Non-Final Act. 41; see also Smith Fig. 2. The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to directly connect the LTs to an ONT because “to just remove some ONTs and the splitters (231-234) does not require undue experiment[ation].” Non-Final Act. 41. Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 18 The Examiner finds Hajduczenia discloses first and second OLTs and an optical splitter with outputs directly connected to ONUs. See Non-Final Act. 41; see also Hajduczenia 122 (Figure 5(b)). The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the teachings of Hajduczenia et al to the system/method of Smith et al so that [] each working OLT (LT) is connected to one specific ONT among a plurality [of] ONTs, and the standby LT is connected to the plurality of ONTs, and a desired reliable cost-effective PON system for FTTH/FTTP/FTTCab can be obtained. Non-Final Act. 41–42. Appellant presents the following principal argument: “Smith, meanwhile, does not teach multiple ONUs [sic] at all, as the cited ‘ONUs’ [sic] are actually all components of a single ONU [sic], and therefore Smith cannot teach or suggest multiple ONUs [sic] that operate in different ways.” Appeal Br. 29; see also Appeal Br. 25–26 (“[A]s expressly recited in the instant claims, the standby primary network node includes its own unique standby OLT, whereas Smith on its face does not.”), 31 (“Smith, meanwhile, does not even teach multiple OLTs, but rather the Examiner has misconstrued line terminations (LTs) as being separate OLTs, when Smith makes abundantly clear that in fact the LTs are all within a common OLT (220).”), Reply Br. 11–12. For this ground of rejection, we see reversible error. Specifically, setting m=1, in Smith (Fig. 2, 2:m splitter/combiners 231–236) would have resulted in each splitter/combiner 231–236 having an output connected to a single ONT. See Smith Fig. 2. However, the Examiner’s findings based on Smith and Hajduczenia do not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would have further modified Smith to omit Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 19 splitter/combiners 231–236 to result in multiple point to point connections from Smith’s OLT to the ONTs. See Non-Final Act. 41–42. Although AAPA depicts linecards 310, 312 in the same cabinet 300, this ground of rejection does not rely on AAPA. To the extent Hajduczenia discloses tree protection (multiple PON interfaces in an ONU), the Examiner does not appear to present findings or reasoning directed to modifying Smith based on these disclosures in Hajduczenia. See Non-Final Act. 41–42. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Smith and Hajduczenia. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, and 7– 10, which depend from claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, which recites similar limitations as claim 1. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 6 over Smith, Hajduczenia, Chen, and Koonen Claim 6 depends indirectly from claim 1. For reasons explained above when addressing claim 1, we, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. CONCLUSION Because we have sustained at least one ground of rejection for each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 6–12 is affirmed. Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 20 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 7–12 103(a) AAPA, Xu, Hajduczenia 1, 2, 4, 7–12 3 103(a) AAPA, Xu, Hajduczenia, Smith 3 6 103(a) AAPA, Xu, Hajduczenia, Chen, Koonen 6 1, 2, 4, 7–11 103(a) Xu, Hajduczenia 1, 2, 4, 7–11 3, 12 103(a) Xu, Hajduczenia, Smith 3, 12 6 103(a) Xu, Hajduczenia, Chen, Koonen 6 1, 2, 4, 7–11 103(a) Zheng, Hajduczenia 1, 2, 4, 7–11 3, 12 103(a) Zheng, Hajduczenia, Smith 3, 12 6 103(a) Zheng, Hajduczenia, Chen, Koonen 6 1–4, 7–12 103(a) Smith, Hajduczenia 1–4, 7–12 6 103(a) Smith, Hajduczenia, Chen, Koonen 6 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6–12 Appeal 2018-008734 Application 14/771,998 21 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation