2019004797 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020)

Ciena Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 1, 2020

2019004797 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 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. 14/816,573 08/03/2015 Hamid MEHRVAR 10.2065.CON 2042 22474 7590 12/01/2020 Clements Bernard Walker 4500 Cameron Valley Parkway Suite 350 Charlotte, NC 28211 EXAMINER LAMBERT, DAVID W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2636 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/01/2020 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): cwright@worldpatents.com patlaw@worldpatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HAMID MEHRVAR, SALIH JASAREVIC, BERNARD THIBOUTOT, and DAVID DOUCET Appeal 2019-004797 Application 14/816,573 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ciena Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-004797 Application 14/816,573 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to “optical receivers in optical communication systems and methods” using “short-term optical recovery.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1–20 are pending; claims 1, 9, and 18 are independent. Appeal Br. 14–18. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (some formatting and emphases added): 1. A method implemented in a coherent optical receiver, the method comprising: detecting a fault in the coherent optical receiver requiring signal reacquisition, wherein the fault is due to any of a fiber pinch, a fiber cut, and a switch-over to another fiber resulting in any of a filter error, a plurality of filter errors, and a loss of light, and implementing an expedited acquisition engine to perform the signal reacquisition by performing one of the following based on the fault a. responsive to detecting, due to the fault, the filter error and no loss of light from a traffic carrying state, readjusting a filter associated with the filter error; b. responsive to detecting, due to the fault, the plurality of filter errors and no loss of light, readjusting each of a plurality of filters associated with the plurality of filter errors; c. responsive to one or more of detecting, due to the fault, the loss of light and a failure to solve the filter error or the plurality of filter errors, loading operational data to perform signal reacquisition, wherein the operational data is utilized to speed up the signal reacquisition relative to a full signal reacquisition and the operational data is determined based on the traffic carrying state; and d. responsive to one or more of detecting, due to the fault, the loss of light and a failure of the operational data, performing the full signal reacquisition. Appeal 2019-004797 Application 14/816,573 3 Appeal Br. 14 (Claims Appendix). References and Rejections The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Chung US 2002/0126351 A1 Sept. 12, 2002 Way US 7,577,366 B2 Aug. 18, 2009 Bontu US 7,636,525 B1 Dec. 22, 2009 Dahan WO 2010/150241 Al Dec. 29, 2010 Claims 1–7, 9–15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bontu, Henmi, and Chung. Final Act. 2. Claim 8, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bontu, Henmi, and Chung, in further view of Way. Final Act. 13. Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bontu, Henmi, and Chung, in further view of Dahan. Final Act. 15. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant argues independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent Appeal 2019-004797 Application 14/816,573 4 consistent with our analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because “Bontu relates to start-up signal acquisition and [Henmi]/Chung relate to dispersion, [such that] none of the references suggest[s] Appellant’s expedited signal acquisition engine which performs a minimal recovery based on a type of fault.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant contends “Henmi clearly fails to teach “wherein the fault is due to any of a fiber pinch, a fiber cut, and a switch- over to another fiber resulting in any of . . . a loss of light’” as claimed. Id. at 10. Appellant further contends Chung does not teach the claimed “fault requires there to be a possibility of a loss of light,” as “[a]t best, Chung suggests a portion of Appellant’s fault (a pinch or bend)” but “does not suggest the fault is a fiber cut.” Id. at 11. We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Appellant argues each of the references separately, whereas the Examiner relies on the combination of Bontu, Henmi, and Chung. See Final Act. 5, 6. Moreover, we find no error in the Examiner’s construction of the recited fault and loss of light terms. The Examiner finds “‘loss of light’ may reasonably be interpreted as a partial loss of light strength or power” (Advisory Act. 2) and “‘fault’ can reasonably be interpreted as anything that causes a physical imperfection or impairment” (Ans. 19). We find the Examiner’s construction to be reasonable and consistent with the Specification, which provides examples without using the terms in a more restrictive fashion than their plain meaning would require. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 34, 38, 41, 45. In contrast, Appellant’s arguments ask us to read the recited loss of light as reciting loss of all light. See Reply Br. 2 (“no light for a predetermined Appeal 2019-004797 Application 14/816,573 5 period of time.”). Based on the record before us, we find such construction impermissibly limiting. See Ans. 17. In view of the Examiner’s reasonable construction of the terms, we find no error in the finding that “Chung teaches that a fault comprising dispersion may be due to any of a fiber pinch, a fiber cut, and a switching over to another fiber,” and “can result in a loss of light” which is “an ‘imperfection or impairment’ in the signal.” Ans. 20; Chung ¶ 4 (“[O]ptical signal distortion due to the polarization-mode dispersion and the chromatic dispersion occurring in an optical fiber affects the quality of optical signals.”) We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would find the limitations of claim 1 obvious in view of the combined teachings of Bontu, Henmi, and Chung. The Examiner finds Bontu teaches detecting and correcting for dispersion in an optical receiver (Ans. 18), “Henmi teaches that it is well-known in the art that dispersion is associated with a loss of light in an optical transmission system as they are both a byproduct of an optical transmission fiber and that dispersion can result in a loss of light” (id. at 19), and “Chung teaches that a fault comprising dispersion may be due to any of a fiber pinch, a fiber cut, and a switching over to another fiber” (id. at 20). See Bontu 2:7–10 (“optical signals received through conventional optical links are distorted by significant amounts of . . . dispersion”) and 3:28–29 ( “adaptive control blocks include at least a dispersion compensation block”); Henmi 1:66–68 (“signal light is subject to the loss of a power and the distortion of waveform due to the influence of optical fiber dispersion”); Chung ¶ 6 (“dispersion might change by a large amount in case of network reconstruction such as replacing optical fiber and also . . . . dispersion of optical fiber undergoes stochastic changes due to fiber’s Appeal 2019-004797 Application 14/816,573 6 structural incompleteness, pinch, bending, twist, pressure, temperature, etc.”). Appellant’s arguments do not persuasively show error in the Examiner’s proffered combination or reasoning. We find the Examiner’s findings and combination analysis to be reasonable. See Final Act. 5, 6. In contrast, Appellant presents no evidence or persuasive technical reasoning that shows the Examiner’s rejection is in error. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”); cf. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). Such argument is insufficient to persuade us of error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and the rejections of the remaining claims which are not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 8. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 9–15 18 103(a) Bontu, Henmi, Chung 1–7, 9–15 18 8, 16, 19 103(a) Bontu, Henmi, Chung, Way 8, 16, 19 17, 20 103(a) Bontu, Henmi, Chung, Dahan 17, 20 Overall Outcome 1–20 Appeal 2019-004797 Application 14/816,573 7 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