Ex Parte Beausoleil et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2014

12008531 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAYMOND G. BEAUSOLEIL, PHILIP J. KUEKES, WILLIAM
J. MUNRO, TIMOTHY P. SPILLER, R. STANLEY WILLIAMS, and
SEAN D. BARRETT
____________

Appeal 2011-009674
Application 12/008,531
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JOHN A.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009674
Application 12/008,531

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-17, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Illustrative Claim
Claim 1. A system comprising:

a first device comprising an integrated circuit chip that
includes an interface for an optical signal, a plurality of
locations that are separately accessible and correspond to
respective frequency components of the optical signal, and a
plurality of optical decoders respectively associated with
the locations and adapted to produce output using the frequency
components respectively corresponding to the locations,
wherein each of the locations comprises a structure that
operates according to information represented by the output
from the optical decoder associated with the location;

a second device that generates a logical address
identifying a selected one of the locations;

a converter capable of activating each of the frequency
components of the optical signal, wherein in response to the
logical address from the second device, the converter activates
one of the frequency components that corresponds to the
location that the logical address identifies; and

an optical path from the converter to the interface.

Prior Art
Reynolds US 6,618,535 B1 Sep. 9, 2003
Appeal 2011-009674
Application 12/008,531

3
Welch US 2004/0033004 A1 Feb. 19, 2004
Heller US 2004/0115696 A1 Jun. 17, 2004
Koren US 6,826,368 B1 Nov. 30, 2004
Yoshimura US 6,845,184 B1 Jan. 18, 2005
Vitaliano US 2005/0059167 A1 Mar. 17, 2005
West US 2005/0072979 A1 Apr. 7, 2005
Knights US 2006/0039666 A1 Feb. 23, 2006

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Welch and Koren.
Claims 2, 3, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Welch, Koren, and Yoshimura.
Claims 4, 6, 7, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Welch, Koren, Yoshimura, and Heller.
Claims 5, 8, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Welch, Koren, Yoshimura, West, and Vitaliano.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Welch, Koren, and Knights.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Welch, Koren, Yoshimura, and Reynolds.

ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1 and 14
Claim 1 recites “each of the locations comprises a structure that
operates according to information represented by the output from the optical
decoder associated with the location.” Appellants contend the optical
demultiplexer of Welch demultiplexes an optical signal into separate
Appeal 2011-009674
Application 12/008,531

4
channels according to corresponding wavelengths. Then, photodiodes and
amplifiers convert the optical channels into electrical signals. According to
Appellants, because the photodiodes and amplifiers operate in the same
manner to convert optical signals into electrical signals regardless of the
information represented in the optical signals, Welch does not teach “a
structure that operates according to information represented by the output
from the optical decoder associated with the location.” App. Br. 5; Reply
Br. 4. Appellants further contend the amplifiers of Welch are part of a
decoding system that produces an electrical output signal, which is operated
on by an external system. Appellants conclude Welch does not teach an
integrated circuit chip with structures operating according to information
represented by the output from the electrical decoder. Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner finds the demultiplexer and photodetectors of Welch
teach an optical decoder that converts each optical channel to an electrical
signal, and the amplifiers of Welch teach a structure that operates on each
electrical signal according to whether the signal is high or low. Ans. 10-11.
In particular, the Examiner finds each amplifier of Welch is a “structure”
operating to amplify the output signal according to whether the “information
represented by the output” is high or low. Ans. 11. We agree. Appellants
have not provided a definition of “a structure that operates according to
information represented by the output from the optical decoder associated
with the location” that excludes amplifiers that operate on each output signal
by amplifying “information” represented by the high and low portions of
each output signal as taught by Welch.
Appeal 2011-009674
Application 12/008,531

5
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 14 which falls
with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claim 15
Claim 15 recites “each frequency component of the optical signal has
a quantum state that represents quantum information.” Appellants contend
the combination of Welch and Koren does not teach using particular
quantum states of photons that are eigenstates of polarization, nor
representing quantum information such as a qubit. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds the polarization of the optical signals taught by the
combination of Welch and Koren teaches quantum states that represent
quantum information. Ans. 11-12.
We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer. Appellants have not provided a definition of
“quantum state” that excludes the polarized optical signals taught by the
combination of Welch and Koren. Further, claim 15 does not recite
eigenstates or qubits, and we find no basis for reading these terms into claim
15.
We sustain the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, and 12
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claims 2, 3, and
12 similar to those presented for the patentability of claim 1 which we find
unpersuasive. We sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2011-009674
Application 12/008,531

6
Section 103 rejection of claims 4, 6, 7, and 10
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claims 4, 6, 7,
and 10 similar to those presented for claim 1 which we find unpersuasive.
We sustain the rejection of claims 4, 6, 7, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 5, 8, 11, and 13
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claims 5, 8, 11,
and 13 similar to those presented for claim 1 which we find unpersuasive.
Appellants also contend the structures of Welch, Koren, Yoshimura, and
West used for classical signals would not be suitable for use with the
quantum information system of Vitaliano. App. Br. 8. Appellants have not
provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding
that the optical systems of Welch, Koren, Yoshimura, and West can transmit
information subsequently processed by the quantum system of Vitaliano. It
is well settled that mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements,
which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative
value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Attorney argument is not
evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can it
take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549
F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977).

Section 103 rejection of claim 9
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claim 9 similar
to those presented for claim 1 which we find unpersuasive. We sustain the
rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2011-009674
Application 12/008,531

7
Section 103 rejection of claims 16 and 17
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claims 16 and 17
similar to those presented for claim 1 which we find unpersuasive. We
sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Welch and Koren is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 2, 3, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Welch, Koren, and Yoshimura is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 4, 6, 7, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Welch, Koren, Yoshimura, and Heller is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5, 8, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Welch, Koren, Yoshimura, West, and Vitaliano is
affirmed.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Welch, Koren, and Knights is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Welch, Koren, Yoshimura, and Reynolds 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). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2011-009674
Application 12/008,531

8

kmm