Ex Parte Bhatnagar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2017

13670988 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2017)

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.
13/670,988 11/07/2012 Vipul Bhatnagar 10.2128 3970
22474 7590 01/27/2017
P1e.me.nts RemarH Walker PT T P
EXAMINER
4500 Cameron Valley Parkway
Suite 350
SHALABY, MINAM
Charlotte, NC 28211 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2017 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):
patlaw @ worldpatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIPUL BHATNAGAR
Appeal 2016-003975
Application 13/670,988
Technology Center 2600
Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID J. CUTITTAII, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—10, and 19-30.2 We have jurisdiction over
the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,”
filed March 7, 2016) and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed July 24, 2015), and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 21, 2016) and Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 1, 2015).
2 Claims 2 and 11—18 were cancelled previously.
Appeal 2016-003975
Application 13/670,988
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method of interconnection
discovery in optical communication systems. Spec. 11.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1.
1. A system for automatic interconnection discovery in an
optical communication system, comprising:
a fiber optic waveguide connecting an origin port to a
destination port, wherein the fiber optic waveguide carries a
primary optical signal;
at an origin port, equipment operable to insert a secondary
acoustic signal on the fiber optic waveguide; and
at a destination port, equipment operable to receive the
secondary acoustic signal inserted on the fiber optic waveguide;
wherein the secondary acoustic signal is encoded with
information related to the origin port; and
wherein the primary optical signal and the secondary
acoustic signal are both coupled to the fiber optic waveguide and
propagate simultaneously over the fiber optic waveguide.
Claims 1, 3—10, 19—23, 25, 27, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liang and Sengupta. Final Act. 5—10.
Claims 24, 26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Liang, Sengupta, and Kleinerman. Final Act. 10-12.
REFERENCES
Liang et al.
Sengupta
Kleinerman
US 2012/0281509 Al Nov. 8, 2012
US 2014/0079400 Al Mar. 20, 2014
US 5,991,479 Nov. 23, 1999
REJECTIONS
2
Appeal 2016-003975
Application 13/670,988
ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3—10,
19—23, 25, 27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Liang and Sengupta turns on whether the combination of Liang and
Sengupta teaches “the primary optical signal and the secondary acoustic
signal are both coupled to the fiber optic waveguide and propagate
simultaneously over the fiber optic waveguide,” and, with respect to claims
29 and 30, whether the combination of Liang and Sengupta teaches “wherein
the primary optical signal is on the fiber optic waveguide prior to the
secondary acoustic signal being added and after the secondary acoustic
signal being removed.”
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 24, 26,
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liang, Sengupta, and
Kleinerman turns on whether the combination of Liang, Sengupta, and
Kleinerman teaches “the coupling mechanism operates non-invasively to
add/remove the secondary acoustic signal mechanically without disrupting
the primary optical signal.”
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3—10, 19—23, 25, 27, 29, and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Liang in view of Sengupta.
Appellant argues that neither Liang nor Sengupta teaches the
simultaneous propagation of a primary optical signal and a secondary
acoustic signal, as recited by claims 1,10, and 19. App. Br. 7—9; Reply Br.
2—3. Specifically, Appellant argues that although Liang discloses adding an
acoustic signal to an optical fiber, “Liang does not contemplate transmitting
3
Appeal 2016-003975
Application 13/670,988
the acoustic signal with a simultaneously co-propagating optical signal.”
App. Br. 7. Further, Appellant argues that Sengupta teaches only two co­
propagating optical signals and does not disclose a co-propagating acoustic
signal. App. Br. 7-8; Reply. Br. 2—3 (citing Liang || 77—78). Accordingly,
Appellant concludes that the combination of Liang and Sengupta fails to
disclose coupling mechanisms allowing for the simultaneous propagation of
a primary optical signal and a secondary acoustic signal. App. Br. 8—9.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because the Examiner
relies upon the combination of Liang and Sengupta to teach simultaneous
propagation of a primary optical signal and a secondary acoustic signal,
whereas Appellant’s argument consists of arguments against each reference
individually. See Final Act. 5—6. Nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where, as here, the basis of the obviousness
rejection is predicated on the combined teachings of Liang and Sengupta. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness
is whether the combination of Liang and Sengupta, taken as a whole, would
have suggested the simultaneous propagation of a primary optical signal and
a secondary acoustic signal to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner finds
that Liang discloses a coupling mechanism for embedding an acoustic signal
on a fiber optic waveguide, and Sengupta teaches a fiber optic link carrying
a primary optical signal and a secondary optical control signal
simultaneously. Final. Act. 5—6 (citing Liang || 38—40, Fig. 2; Sengupta
1 5, Abstract). The Examiner further concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify Liang to carry a primary optical signal along with its
secondary acoustic control signal simultaneously. Ans. 3^4; Final Act. 5—6.
4
Appeal 2016-003975
Application 13/670,988
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of Appellant’s invention would have combined Liang’s mechanism for
adding an acoustic signal to a fiber optic waveguide with Sengupta’s fiber
optic waveguide that carries both a primary optical data signal and a
secondary optical control signal to simultaneously transmit a primary optical
signal and a secondary acoustic signal. Ans. 3^4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1,10, and 19 and dependent claims 3—9, 20-23, 25, and 27, which are
not argued separately.
Appellant further argues that the combination of Liang and Sengupta
fails to teach “the primary optical signal is on the fiber optic waveguide prior
to the secondary acoustic signal being added and after the secondary
acoustic signal being removed,” as recited by claims 29 and 30. App. Br. 9—
11. Appellant specifically argues that Figure 9 of Sengupta, on which the
Examiner relies, discloses “a WDM coupler to simultaneously add a first
optical channel and a second optical channel to a fiber optic waveguide,”
whereas claims 29 and 30 recite adding an acoustic signal to the waveguide
while the optical signal is present. Id. Appellant further asserts that Figures
1 and 2 of Sengupta make clear that both optical signals are added
simultaneously and at the same location. Id. at 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because Sengupta
expressly teaches that
operations may begin with the transmission of a first optical
signal that has a first wavelength from a first network device to
a second network device over the communications channel of
the fiber optic data network (block 700). Next, a second optical
control signal that has a second wavelength that is different
5
Appeal 2016-003975
Application 13/670,988
than the first wavelength may be coupled onto the
communications channel (block 710).
Ans. 7 (quoting Sengupta 191) (emphasis omitted). That is, a first optical
signal is transmitted, and, subsequently, a second optical signal is coupled
onto the communications channel. Id.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 29 and 30.
Claims 24, 26, and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Liang in view of Sengupta and Kleinerman.
Appellant argues that Kleinerman fails to teach “the coupling
mechanism operates non-invasively to add/remove the secondary acoustic
signal mechanically without disrupting the primary optical signal,” as recited
by claim 24 and as similarly recited in claims 26 and 28. App. Br. 11—12
(emphasis omitted). Appellant specifically argues that Kleinerman’s
purpose is to disrupt the optical signal, and that Kleinerman discloses using
an acoustic or mechanical signal “to disrupt the light pulse to accurately
reproduce the instantaneous sensor signal and to measure rapid signal
changes in real time, including voice microphone signals.” App. Br. 12;
Reply Br. 5—6.
The Examiner finds that Kleinerman’s teaching that “[a]ny sensor
signals which are in the form of or can be converted into acoustical or other
mechanical forces could be coupled noninvasively to the fibers discussed in
section 3.5” suggests that the exiting optical signal would not be disrupted.
Ans. 7—8 (citing Kleinerman col. 48,11. 41—43); Final Act. 10—11.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument because Appellant has
demonstrated only that Kleinerman may add an acoustic or mechanical
sensor signal to an optical signal, but not that the signal is necessarily
6
Appeal 2016-003975
Application 13/670,988
disrupted. Reply Br. 5—6; see Kleinerman col. 48,11. 40-65. Further, we
agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood Kleinerman to teach noninvasive coupling and such a teaching
suggests that the signal is not disrupted. See Ans. 7—8.
Furthermore, we note that Sengupta teaches the addition of a
secondary optical control signal that is added to a fiber optic line carrying a
primary optical data signal “without significantly impacting or disrupting the
high speed network data traffic.” Sengupta 123. A person of ordinary skill
in the art would have understood Sengupta as suggesting the addition of a
secondary control signal to a fiber optic line carrying a primary optical
signal without disrupting the primary optical signal. Although the Examiner
has not relied on Sengupta to disclose “non-invasively to add/remove the
secondary acoustic signal mechanically without disrupting the primary
optical signal,” we note that Sengupta nonetheless discloses this limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24, 26,
and 28.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3—10, 19-23, 25, 27,
29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liang and
Sengupta.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 24, 26, and 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liang, Sengupta, and Kleinerman.
7
Appeal 2016-003975
Application 13/670,988
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 3—10, and 19—30.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8