Ex Parte Bergano et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2012

11537995 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte NEAL S. BERGANO, CLEO D. ANDERSON, WILLIAM W.
PATTERSON, and RICHARD L. MAYBACH
_____________

Appeal 2010-000716
Application 11/537,995
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000716
Application 11/537,995

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and system for determining an
approximate location of a polarization anomaly. Spec. 2-3. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A polarization anomaly locator system for an optical
communication network, said system comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit a probe signal on a
network having first and second optical transmission paths and
a loop-back path, said first and second optical transmission
paths supporting communication of optical signals in opposite
directions on said network, said loop-back path coupling at
least a portion of said probe signal from said first transmission
path to said second transmission path as a returned probe
signal; said transmitter having a modulation section optically
communicating with said probe signal source, said modulation
section configured to impart a depth of modulation on said
probe signal at a particular frequency; and
a receiver coupled to said second transmission path and
configured to receive said returned probe signal and to provide
an output indicating an approximate position along said first
transmission path of a polarization anomaly in response to said
returned probe signal, said polarization anomaly comprising
polarization dependent loss or polarization mode dispersion.

REFERENCES
Sentsui US 5,202,746 Apr. 13, 1993

Cai US 6,330,383 B1 Dec. 11, 2001

Appeal 2010-000716
Application 11/537,995

3
Holland US 6,396,575 B1 May 28, 2002

Ito US 6,650,846 B1 Nov. 18, 2003

Bergano US 7,187,860 B2 Mar. 6, 2007
(filed Apr. 5, 2002)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sentsui and Holland. Ans. 3-5.
Claims 2-8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sentsui, Holland, and Ito. Ans. 5-7.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sentsui, Holland, and Cai. Ans. 7-8.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Sentsui and
Holland teaches or suggests providing an output indicating an approximate
position along said first transmission path of a polarization anomaly in
response to said returned probe signal, said polarization anomaly comprising
polarization dependent loss or polarization mode dispersion?

ANALYSIS
We select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1
and 11-13 as Appellants have not argued any of the other claims with
particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 1 recites “a receiver…to
provide an output indicating an approximate position along said first
transmission path of a polarization anomaly in response to said returned
Appeal 2010-000716
Application 11/537,995

4
probe signal, said polarization anomaly comprising polarization dependent
loss or polarization mode dispersion.” The Examiner finds that it is the
combination of Sentsui and Holland that discloses this limitation. Ans. 4-5.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Holland discloses determining a
polarization anomaly by polarization dependent loss or polarization mode
dispersion and approximating the position of the anomaly. Ans. 4-5.
The Examiner finds that Appellants’ first argument that Sentsui does
not disclose the disputed limitation (App. Br. 13) is misplaced since, as
indicated above, Holland is used to teach the limitation. We agree with the
Examiner.
Appellants additionally argue that Holland does not disclose the
disputed limitation either since Holland teaches polarization markers, at
fixed locations, that only indicate attenuation anomalies using optical time-
domain reflectometry (OTDR). App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 6. Since these fixed
locations are known locations, Appellants argue that no one would be
“motivated to use Holland to locate the position of the ‘polarization
markers.’” Reply Br. 6. We disagree. Holland teaches that polarization
markers are deployed after a coupler and before the distribution fibers. Col.
4, ll. 26-28. In order to determine transmission loss in each branch, a unique
polarization dependent loss (PDL) is introduced into each branch. Ans. 13
and Col. 4, ll. 29-30. Varying the polarization allows for transmission losses
and faults to be located along the length of the fiber. Col. 4, ll. 30-34; col.
12, ll. 53-64; and Fig. 6. Thus, the Examiner is correct that, even though the
location of the polarization markers is known, the markers still provide an
approximate location of the polarization anomaly as required by the claim.
Ans. 13. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11-13.
Appeal 2010-000716
Application 11/537,995

5
Regarding claims 2-10, 14, and 15 Appellants make the same
arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12. App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 7.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-10, 14, and 15 for
the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Sentsui
and Holland teaches or suggests providing an output indicating an
approximate position along said first transmission path of a polarization
anomaly in response to said returned probe signal, said polarization anomaly
comprising polarization dependent loss or polarization mode dispersion.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-15 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