Ex Parte Azadet

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 24, 2012

10219905 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 24, 2012)

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.
10/219,905 08/15/2002 Kameran Azadet 18 5615
47386 7590 04/24/2012
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
1300 POST ROAD
SUITE 205
FAIRFIELD, CT 06824
EXAMINER
LI, SHI K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KAMERAN AZADET
____________

Appeal 2009-013217
Application 10/219,905
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, THOMAS S. HAHN,
and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-24, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-013217
Application 10/219,905

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to amplitude modulated optical
communication systems and methods for bandwidth compression based on
using a calibration scheme that compensates for the non-linear effects of the
laser source (see Spec. 2:5-13).
Exemplary independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method for transmitting a digital signal over a
fiber channel using an optical transmission scheme having a
plurality of analog signal levels, wherein each of said analog
signal levels corresponds to a different digital value, said
method comprising the steps of:
adjusting one or more of said analog signal levels to
compensate for non-linear effects of a light source;
converting said digital signal to an analog signal using said
plurality of analog signal levels including said one or more adjusted
analog signal levels; and
applying said analog signal level to a light source.
Rejections
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10-13, 16, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Ho (US 6,690,894 B2).
Claims 1, 8-11, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Hietala (US 2003/0030873 A1).
Claims 1, 8-11, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Vrazel (US 7,173,551 B2).
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ho or Vrazel, in view of Freeman (Roger L. Freeman,
Appeal 2009-013217
Application 10/219,905

3
“Telecommunication System Engineering,” Published by John Wiley &
Sons, 1980, pp. 99-103).1
Appellant’s Contentions
1. With respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 11 over Ho,
Appellant contends that Ho does not support a finding of anticipation
because the cited portion of the reference “does not disclose or suggest
adjusting levels to compensate for ‘non-linear effects of a light source,’ as
required by each independent claim” (App. Br. 4-5). Appellant specifically
challenges the Examiner’s position that the phrase “compensate for non-
linear effects of a light source” is a statement of use and asserts that the
disputed phrase constitutes functional language and is absent in Ho (App.
Br. 5).
2. With respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 11 over Hietala,
Appellant contends that Hietala discloses a technique for linearizing a
digital-to-analog converter comprising multiple current sources for adjusting
the current so that the current sources generate identical currents (App. Br.
5). Appellant concludes that adjusting current levels to compensate for non-
linearities of the current sources disclosed by Hietala is not the same as the
claimed adjusting levels to compensate for “non-linear effects of a light
source” (id.).
3. With respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 11 over Vrazel,
Appellant contends that, in addition to adjusting the signal level after the
DAC, Vrazel “does not disclose or suggest adjusting the analog signal levels

1 Separate patentability was not argued for claims 2-7, 12-17, and 22-24
under § 103 over various combinations including Vrazel and Hietala (see
Ans. 2-3; App. Br. 4-9).

Appeal 2009-013217
Application 10/219,905

4
employed by the DAC 504 to convert the digital signal to an analog signal”
(App. Br. 6). Appellant further argues that adjusting the signal level of
Vrazel does not meet the claimed plurality of analog signal levels that are
part of an optical transmission scheme (App. Br. 6-7).
4. With respect to the rejections of claim 21 over Ho or Vrazel, in
view of Freeman, Appellant contends that Freeman does not provide the
missing disclosure in Ho or Vrazel with respect to “adjusting one more of a
plurality of analog signal levels to compensate for non-linear effects of the
light source; and converting the digital signal to an analog signal using the
plurality of analog signal levels including said one or more adjusted analog
signal levels,” as recited in claim 21 (App. Br. 7-8).
5. With respect to the rejections of claims 8, 9, 18, and 19,
Appellant repeats the same arguments raised for patentability of claims 1
and 11 over Hietala or Vrazel (App. Br. 8-9), intending claims 8, 9, 18, and
19 stand or fall with their base claims.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We agree only with Appellant’s
third contention. With respect to Appellant’s other contentions, we adopt as
our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.
However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
regarding claims 1 and 11 for emphasis as follows.
Appeal 2009-013217
Application 10/219,905

5
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection over Ho
With respect to Appellant’s first contention, we note that the
Examiner properly concluded that the impairments mentioned in column 6,
lines 26-29, of Ho includes non-linear effects as characteristics of the light
source which are compensated by the level setting algorithm (Ans. 7-8).
Contrary to Appellant’s contention that no evidence was shown that the level
setting algorithm corrects impairments caused by the non-linear effects of
the light source (Reply Br. 2-3), the feedback system of Ho corrects any
impairments caused by the components within the loop (see Ans. 8). We
agree with the Examiner’s conclusion (id.) that the impairments caused by
the light source, which are provided via the optical signal 31 to the feedback
loop, are part of the impairments compensated by the level-setting algorithm
32 (see Ho, Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 41-60, and col. 6, ll. 26-52).
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection over Hietala
Regarding Appellant’s second contention, we also find that the
Examiner properly relied on paragraph [0042] of Hietala for discussing “the
non-linearity of a light source” and on paragraph [0043] of Hietala for
disclosing current setting arrangements corresponding to each current source
in order to linearize the transmission source (see Ans. 9). While adjusting
the current sources in Hietala corresponds to the current levels in the
multilevel modulator, as asserted by Appellant (Reply Br. 3), we observe
that the purpose of the disclosed adjustment is to maximize the distortion-
free-transmission of the signal in the optical fiber 280 (see Hietala, ¶
[0033]). Therefore, the current adjustment of each current source as a part
of the multilevel modulation scheme ultimately compensates for the
distortion of non-linearity of the light source.
Appeal 2009-013217
Application 10/219,905

6
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection over Vrazel
With respect to Appellant’s third contention, we disagree with the
Examiner’s stated rationale for reordering the disclosed method of Vrazel to
perform the signal compensation as a part of the digital-to-analog converter
(DAC) 504. As stated by Appellant (Reply Br. 4-5), the proposed
modification to Vrazel does not result in the plurality of analog signal levels,
that are adjusted to compensate for non-linear effects of the light source, to
be used for converting the digital signal, as recited in claims 1 and 11.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection over Ho or Vrazel, in view of Freeman
With respect to Appellant’s fourth contention, for the same reasons
stated above regarding the teachings of Ho, we agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that the combination of Ho and Freeman teaches or suggests the
subject matter of claim 21. However, we reach the opposite conclusion with
respect to the combination of Vrazel and Freeman.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10-13,
16, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ho.
2. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 8-11, and 18-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hietala.
3. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho and Freeman and rejecting claims 2,
5, 12, 15, and 22-24 over the combination of Hietala and Roullet.
4. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 8-11, and 18-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vrazel, rejecting claim
Appeal 2009-013217
Application 10/219,905

7
21 over Vrazel and Freeman, and rejection claims 2-7, 12-17, and 22-24
over Vrazel in view of Cohen or Adam.
5. Claims 1-24 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc