BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 29, 2020

2018008734 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 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.
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