Eric Y. Chan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 29, 2019

13954674 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 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.
13/954,674 07/30/2013 Eric Y. Chan 13-0651-US-NP 1094
48058 7590 08/29/2019
GATES & COOPER LLP - Boeing
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6060 CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 830
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
EXAMINER
JORDAN, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2019 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):
docketing-us@gates-cooper.com
gates-cooper@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC Y. CHAN,
DENNIS G. KOSHINZ, TUONG KIEN TRUONG, and
HENRY B. PANG
____________

Appeal 2018-009160
Application 13/954,674
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Acting Vice Chief Administrative
Patent Judge, DONNA M. PRAISS, and JEFFREY R. SNAY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ANKENBRAND, Acting Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision2 finally rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant is the Applicant, The Boeing Company, which, according to the
Brief, is a real party in interest. Appeal Brief, filed July 3, 2017 (“Br.”) 1.
2 Final Action, mailed November 3, 2016 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2018-009160
Application 13/954,674

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Background
The subject matter on appeal “is generally related to components and
systems of optical communication buses.” Specification, filed July 30, 2013
(“Spec.”) ¶ 2. According to the specification, optical networks that use
plastic optical fibers have lower installation and maintenance costs than
networks using copper or other metal wiring. Id. ¶ 3. Plastic optical fibers
also provide weight savings, which, in turn, reduce fuel consumption and
lower emissions for vehicles, such as aircraft. Id.
The specification further states that plastic optical fibers can connect
line replaceable units (i.e., components that send and receive signals from
other components) by using a star coupler that is connected to each line
replaceable unit. Id. ¶¶ 31, 33. A long optical fiber connection between a
star coupler and a line replaceable unit, however, can create a signal delay,
which can lead to problems. Id. ¶ 34. To overcome optical signal delays,
the specification discloses using a dual symmetrical star coupler optical
network in which multiple line replaceable units are connected to each star
coupler, and the two star couplers are connected to each other so that optical
signals sent from each line replaceable unit are transmitted to all of the line
replaceable units. Id. ¶¶ 35–37. However, the specification discloses that a
dual symmetrical star coupler configuration can result in echo optical
transmissions along the optical fibers connecting the star couplers, which
can cause errors. Id. ¶ 39. To address this, the specification teaches the use
of a pair of tapered mixing rods in place of each star coupler. Id. ¶ 40.
Of the appealed claims, claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Claim
1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and reproduced below:
Appeal 2018-009160
Application 13/954,674

3
1. An optical network architecture comprising:
a first pair of tapered mixing rods comprising a first
mixing rod and a second mixing rod;
a second pair of tapered mixing rods comprising a third
mixing rod and a fourth mixing rod;
a first plurality of plastic optical fibers directly coupled to
transmit light from the first pair of tapered mixing rods to
a first plurality of line replaceable units;
a second plurality of plastic optical fibers directly
coupled to transmit light from the second pair of tapered
mixing rods to a second plurality of line replaceable
units;
a first local plastic optical fiber directly coupled to
transmit light from the first mixing rod to the second
mixing rod such that light received by the first pair of
tapered mixing rods from any of the first plurality of line
replaceable units will be communicated to others of the
first plurality of line replaceable units;
a second local plastic optical fiber directly coupled to
transmit light from the third mixing rod to the fourth
mixing rod such that light received by the second pair of
tapered mixing rods from any of the second plurality of
line replaceable units will be communicated to others of
the second plurality of line replaceable units; and
at least one plastic optical fiber directly connected from a
first face of one of the first pair of tapered mixing rods to
a second face of one of the second pair of tapered mixing
rods such that a first end of the at least one plastic optical
fiber is connected to the first face of one of the first pair
of tapered mixing rods and a second end of the at least
one plastic optical fiber is connected to the second face
of one of the second pair of tapered mixing rods.
Br. 25 (Claims App’x).
Appeal 2018-009160
Application 13/954,674

4
The References
Milton US 3,936,141 Feb. 3, 1976
Love US 4,072,399 Feb. 7, 1978
Kobayashi US 4,948,218 Aug. 14, 1990
Fridén US 6,697,874 B1 Feb. 24, 2004

The Rejection
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
1. Claims 1–5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Love in view of Fridén and Milton; and
2. Claims 6–9 and 12–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Love in view of Fridén and Milton, and further in view of Kobayashi.
OPINION
After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we are persuaded that Appellant identifies
reversible error with respect to the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of those claims for the reasons
explained below.
In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds that Love discloses an
optical network architecture including, among other things, a first pair of
tapered mixing rods, a second pair of tapered mixing rods, a first plurality of
optical fibers directly coupled to transmit light from the first pair of tapered
mixing rods to a first plurality of line replaceable units, and a second
plurality of optical fibers directly coupled to transmit light from the second
pair of tapered mixing rods to a second plurality of line replaceable units.
Final Act. 4–5 (citing Love, Fig. 2). The Examiner finds that Love does not
disclose the optical fibers are plastic, local plastic optical fibers directly
Appeal 2018-009160
Application 13/954,674

5
coupled to transmit light between the mixing rods of a pair, or at least one
plastic optical fiber directly connected from a mixing rod of a first pair to a
mixing rod of a second pair, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 5–6.
The Examiner finds that Fridén discloses using plastic optical fibers
and concludes it would have been obvious to modify Love’s system to use
plastic optical fibers for optical signal communications. Id. at 6.
The Examiner finds that Milton discloses a multiple optical connector
that includes local optical fibers directly coupled to transmit light from a
first mixing rod to a second mixing rod. Id. at 7. The Examiner concludes it
would have been obvious to interconnect Love’s mixing rods, as Milton
teaches, “to provide communication between the mixing rods.” Id. The
Examiner also concludes that such a modification would have been a
combination of prior art elements according to known methods that would
have yielded predictable results. Id.
The Examiner also finds that Love discloses another embodiment in
which an optical fiber is directly connected from the face of a tapered
mixing rod of a first pair to the face of a tapered mixing rod of a second pair,
as claim 1 recites. Id. at 8. The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to combine Love’s embodiments because it would have been a
combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results. Id. at 8–9.
Appellant contends, among other things, there would have been no
reason to modify Love in view of Milton, as the Examiner proposes. Br. 9–
12. Specifically, Appellant argues that Love already discloses an optical
loop topology in which stations are connected to an optical loop via
couplers. Id. at 10. Appellant asserts that Love’s connecting elements 48,
Appeal 2018-009160
Application 13/954,674

6
56 do not have an optical fiber connection, but that the loop will deliver a
signal from rod 56 to rod 48. Id. at 11–12.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. “[R]ejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006)).
Here, the Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument that there
would have been no reason to combine Love and Milton by reiterating that
the proposed combination would have provided communication between
mixing rods. Ans. 4. The Examiner further states that “[o]ne skilled in the
art would recognize that based on this evidence there are many benefits to
providing communication between mixing rods, including redundancy,
signal monitoring or error checking.” Id.
The Examiner, however, does not articulate how directly coupling
Love’s tapered rods (i.e., the rods 48, 56 depicted in the embodiment of
Love’s Figure 2) in view of Milton (i.e., so the tapered rods 48, 56 have a
local optical fiber connection like Milton’s fiber bundle 33 in Figure 3)
would have resulted in signal monitoring or error checking. Nor does
Milton disclose or suggest that these functions result from coupling
connectors (i.e., Milton’s connectors 31, 32) or connecting rods via the fiber
bundle 33. The Examiner’s rationale regarding redundancy is also
insufficient because it relies upon the result of redundancy without
explaining with some rational underpinning why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have sought redundancy for Love’s embodiment, or why one of
Appeal 2018-009160
Application 13/954,674

7
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized redundancy as an added
benefit. Ans. 4. For these same reasons, the record also does not support the
Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Love’s embodiment depicted
in Figure 2 and Milton’s fiber bundle 33 would have yielded results that
were predictable.
As a result, the Examiner has not set forth articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have
been obvious to modify the embodiment of Love’s Figure 2 in view of
Milton, so Love’s rods 48, 56 are directly coupled via a local plastic optical
fiber, as claim 1 recites.
The Examiner relies upon the same combination of Love and Milton
in rejecting independent claim 10. Final Act. 11–12. Claims 2–5 depend
from claim 1 and claim 11 depends from claim 10. Accordingly, we reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the combination of Love in view of Fridén and Milton for the same
reasons we provide with respect to claim 1.
The remaining rejection of claims 6–9 and 12–20 is based upon the
combination of Love, Fridén, and Milton, and further in view of Kobayashi.
However, the Examiner does not rely upon Kobayashi to remedy the
deficiency discussed above. See Final Act. 13–22. In rejecting independent
claim 17, the Examiner points to the reasoning the Examiner provides in
rejecting claim 1. Id. at 18–19. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
claims 6–9 and 12–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons that we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 10, and 11 over Love,
Fridén, and Milton.

Appeal 2018-009160
Application 13/954,674

8
DECISION/ORDER
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
reversed.

REVERSED