Ex Parte BuAbbud

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 18, 2009

09932867 (B.P.A.I. May. 18, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GEORGE H. BUABBUD
____________

Appeal 2008-5849
Application 09/932,867
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided:1 May 18, 2009
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-5849
Application 09/932,867

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5 and 7 (see App. Br. 1). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant invented a method and apparatus to conduct simultaneous
communications over a single optical fiber by employing two different
operating frequencies.2
Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows:
1. A method of providing TV signals to multiple
subscribers and bidirectional telephonic communications to a
multiplicity of subscribers through a single optical fiber
comprising the steps of:
transmitting light at a first wavelength carrying plain old
telephone service telephonic signals from a first plurality of
telephone related devices and at a second wavelength carrying
TV signals from a TV signal source through an optical fiber
from a first end to a second end;
receiving said first wavelength of light and generating
first electrical signals within a first frequency band and
representative of said plurality of plain old telephone service
telephonic signals;
receiving said second wavelength of light and generating
second electrical signals within a second frequency band and
representative of said TV signals;
transmitting said plain old telephone service telephonic
electrical signals to a plurality of telephone related devices and
said second electrical signals to a plurality of TV signal
receiving devices;
generating a plurality of return electrical plain old
telephone service telephonic signals at said first frequency band

2 See generally Spec. 1.
Appeal 2008-5849
Application 09/932,867

3
representative of return telephonic information and a plurality
of TV related electrical signals at a third frequency band
representative of TV related information from said plurality of
subscribers;
multiplexing said electrical signals carrying said return
plain old telephone service telephonic signals at said first
frequency band and said TV related electrical signals carrying
said TV related information at said third frequency band;
receiving said multiplexed electrical signals and
generating light at said first wavelength representative of said
return plain old telephone service telephonic signals and said
TV related information;
transmitting light at said first wavelength and carrying
said return plain old telephone service telephonic signals and
said TV related information through said optical fiber from said
second end to said first end;
receiving said light carrying said return plain old
telephone service telephonic signals and said TV related
information and generating a plurality of third electrical signals
representative of said return plain old telephone service
telephonic signals and a plurality of fourth electrical signals
representative of said TV related information; and
transmitting said third electrical signals to said first
plurality of telephone related devices and said fourth electrical
signals to said TV signal source.
The Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Beveridge US 5,615,246 Mar. 25, 1997
Feldman US 6,577,414 B1 Jun. 10, 2003
(filed Feb. 19, 1999)
Kitazawa et al., Fiber-Optic Subscriber System Based on Passive Optical
Network Architecture, 43 HITACHI REV. 53 (1994).
Appeal 2008-5849
Application 09/932,867

4
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beveridge and Feldman.
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beveridge, Feldman, and Kitazawa.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant argues that the combination of Beveridge and Feldman fails
to disclose many features of the claimed invention, such as failing to
disclose receiving first and second wavelengths of light through an optical
fiber as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 11). The Examiner argues that
Feldman discloses that wavelengths of the broadcast and targeted services
must be different wavelengths in order to prevent interference between the
signals, and therefore the claim limitations are met by the combination of
Beveridge and Feldman (Ans. 10).

ISSUE
1. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Beveridge and Feldman discloses a method of providing TV
and telephonic signals to multiple subscribers over a single optical fiber by
employing two light transmitted signals at two wavelengths?
2. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Beveridge, Feldman, and Kitazawa discloses an apparatus
Appeal 2008-5849
Application 09/932,867

5
that will convert light transmitted signals at two wavelengths into a
unidirectional electrical TV signal and a bi-directional plain old telephone
service electrical signal?

FINDINGS OF FACT
Beveridge
1. Figure 5 of Beveridge

Figure 5 discloses a fiber/coax transport architecture where telephony and
video signals are transported through a common network (col. 8, ll. 19-21).
2. The central office (13) includes video transmission equipment (12),
special services equipment (33) and a telephony switch (11). Telephony
signals from the switch (11) and special services equipment (33) are
supplied to the RF modulator/demodulator unit (34). Video signals from the
video transmission equipment (12) are combined with telephony signals
Appeal 2008-5849
Application 09/932,867

6
from the RF modulator/demodulator unit (34) in the combiner transceiver
(35) unit (col. 8, ll. 21-31).
3. Optical signals from the combiner transceiver are sent to an optical node
(17) over fiber optic cables (14) wherein the signal is converted to electrical
signals sent over coaxial cables (24) (col. 8, ll. 44-46).
4. The combined telephony and video signals are directed to the network
interface (43) via a power tap (31) and a jamming detection and
disconnection device (36). Telephony and video signals are supplied to the
telephone (27) and television units (26), respectively, at the subscriber’s
premises (21) (col. 8, ll. 47-60).
Feldman
5. Figure 1 of Feldman

Figure 1 discloses a simplified block diagram of an optical communications
network architecture for fiber to the home/curb communications.
Appeal 2008-5849
Application 09/932,867

7
6. A local headend (110) receives baseband video signals from a central
primary hub (100). The local headend (110) includes a transmitter (112)
which receives broadcast video signals. The broadcast signals are then
amplified by an optical amplifier (114-EDFA) that amplifies the optical
broadcast signals without the need to convert them to electrical signals. The
amplified signal is then processed through an optical splitter (116). The
local headend also includes a multiplexer (118) that receives target services
such as internet protocol data and narrowcast video channels (col. 3, l. 59–
col. 4, l. 4).
7. The signals from the local headend are transported to a path-redundant
supertrunking ring (120) comprised of hubs (122, 124, and 126). Each of
the outputs of the optical splitter (116) connects with one of the hubs. The
targeted services from the multiplexer (118) connect to the hubs over
separate fibers (col. 4, ll. 5-22).
8. Hub (126) has a downstream broadcast video path with an EDFA
amplifier (128) having its output connected to an optical splitter (130). Each
output of the optical splitter (130) is connected to a coarse wavelength
division multiplexer (132-CWDM) that combines multiple signals at various
wavelengths for transmission along fiber optic cables (col. 4, ll. 23-28).
9. A targeted services path has an outgoing downstream path which sends
targeted service signals through the multiplexer (133) to transmitter (134) to
a coarse wavelength division multiplexer (132-CWDM) (col. 4, ll. 28-33).
10. Hub (126) amplifies both downstream broadcast video and targeted
services signals and combines them to a composite optical signal which is
transmitted through the coarse wavelength division multiplexer (132-
CWDM) to an optical electrical converter (150-OEC) (col. 4, ll. 33-38).
Appeal 2008-5849
Application 09/932,867

8
11. The target services signal has an upstream path which receives signals
from the coarse wavelength division multiplexer (132-CWDM) and that
travels through an optical combiner (136) to a receiver (138) and then into a
cable modem termination system and router (140) (col. 4, ll. 39-43).
12. The invention employs passive optical networks (142-PON), along with
an optical splitter, feeder, and distribution fiber as opposed to hybrid fiber
coaxial systems that use dedicated downstream and upstream feeder fibers
requiring the installation of a large amount of fiber (col. 4, ll. 44-49).
13. Each passive optical network (142-PON) carries bi-directional signals
(1.5 µm/1.3 µm) via coarse wavelength division multiplexing between
coarse wavelength division multiplexer (132) and coarse wavelength
division multiplexer (156) of the optical electrical converter (150) (col. 4, ll.
50-53).
14. The optical electrical converter (150-OEC) converts downstream optical
signals from hub (126) to electrical signals and then transmits them over
coax to the subscribers. The optical electrical converter (150-OEC) converts
upstream electrical signals from the subscribers into optical signals for
transmission back to the hub (126) (col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 4).
15. The broadcast and inserted targeted services wavelengths are different
in order to prevent interference noise. The insertion of the targeted services
signals into the broadcast signal occurs in the hub (126) prior to the last
amplifiers (col. 5, ll. 25-45).
16. The upstream signal at 1.3µm uses the coarse wavelength division
multiplexer to utilize the same fiber as the downstream signal. The optical
power downstream exceeds that of the upstream signal (col. 5, ll. 51-65).

Appeal 2008-5849
Application 09/932,867

9
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’”
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). “Moreover, limitations are not to be read
into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).
“‘A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings
from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject
matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA
1976)).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to Appellant to
overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness
is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative
persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references
individually where the rejections are based upon combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5
Appellant argues that the combination of Beveridge and Feldman fails
to disclose all of the claim limitations, and therefore fails to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness (App. Br. 11). Appellant indicates that
Appeal 2008-5849
Application 09/932,867

10
claim limitations regarding transmitting light at a first wavelength carrying
plain old telephone signals and at a second wavelength carrying television
signals through an optical fiber from the first to second end is not disclosed
by the cited art (App. Br. 11). The Examiner maintains that the wavelengths
of the broadcast and the inserted target services signals must be different in
order to prevent interference between the wavelengths (Ans. 10).
The Examiner states that the combination of Beveridge and Feldman
discloses the light transmissions at multiple wavelengths as the claimed
invention (Ans. 3-5). Beveridge discloses a fiber/coax transport architecture
where telephony and video signals are transported through a common
network (FF 1-4). It is the Examiner’s position that Beveridge fails to
disclose light transmissions at multiple wavelengths carrying both plain old
telephone signals and television signals through an optic fiber (Ans. 3).
However, the Examiner cites Feldman as an obvious modification to
Beveridge (Ans. 4-5).
Feldman discloses a fiber-to-the-home/curb access system for
providing broadband communications (FF 5-16). Feldman employs passive
optical networks that carry bi-directional light signals at multiple
wavelengths (downstream/upstream) (FF 13-14). The Examiner is relying
upon Feldman’s bidirectional signals to disclose the claimed invention’s use
of light signals at multiple wavelengths carrying both plain old telephone
and television information through an optic fiber (Ans. 11-12). However,
Feldman’s bidirectional signals are not equivalents of Appellant’s
downstream light transmissions at multiple wavelengths. Feldman uses only
one light transmitted signal for the downstream transmission (FF 5, 7-14).
Feldman’s one transmitted light signal carries both the target services and
Appeal 2008-5849
Application 09/932,867

11
the broadcast information (FF 15). The claimed invention requires at least
two downstream light transmitted signals, one signal carrying plain old
telephone information and another signal carrying television information
(see App. Br. 4-5).
The Examiner argues that Feldman discloses that the wavelengths of
the broadcast and inserted targeted services signals must be different in order
to prevent interference noise (Ans. 10). We agree with the Examiner’s
assertion, but different wavelengths of the broadcast and inserted targeted
services electrical signals do not disclose multiple light transmitted
downstream signals required by Appellant’s claimed invention (see App. Br.
4-5). Although Feldman’s two electrical signals are different in order of
wavelength, they are still transmitted on only one light signal downstream of
one order and one light signal upstream of a different order, respectively (FF
15-16). The wavelength differential between Feldman’s upstream and
downstream light transmitted signals does not address the deficiencies of
Beveridge for the reasons stated previously.
We thereby find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 and will not sustain the rejection over Beveridge and
Feldman.
Claim 7
Claim 7 stands rejected as unpatentable over the combination of
Beveridge, Feldman, and Kitazawa.
The Examiner indicates that the combination of Beveridge and
Feldman meets all of the limitations of claim 7, with the exception of TCM
bi-directional telephonic signals transmissions through a HFC network (Ans.
6). The Examiner uses Kitazawa to address the deficiencies of the
Appeal 2008-5849
Application 09/932,867

12
Beveridge and Feldman combination (Ans. 6). Claim 7 requires an
apparatus that will convert light transmitted signals at two wavelengths into
a unidirectional electrical TV signal and a bi-directional plain old telephone
service electrical signal (App. Br. 5-7).
The combination of Beveridge and Feldman does not disclose an
apparatus that converts light transmitted signals at two wavelengths into two
electrical signals. As we discussed previously, Feldman is designed to
address multiple light signals at different wavelengths but only in regards to
upstream and downstream comparisons.
The apparatus disclosed in claim 7 processes two downstream
transmitted light signals at different wavelengths and the combination of
Beveridge and Feldman does not disclose this feature. Kitazawa does not
cure the deficiencies of the Beveridge and Feldman combination.
We thereby find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 and will not sustain the rejection over Beveridge, Feldman, and
Kitazawa.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Beveridge and Feldman discloses a method of providing TV
and telephonic signals to multiple subscribers over a single optical fiber by
employing two light transmitted signals at two wavelengths.
2. Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Beveridge, Feldman, and Kitazawa discloses an apparatus
that will convert light transmitted signals at two wavelengths into a
Appeal 2008-5849
Application 09/932,867

13
unidirectional electrical TV signal and a bi-directional plain old telephone
service electrical signal.

DECISION
We will not sustain the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5
and 7.

REVERSED

babc

HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C.
530 VIRGINIA ROAD
P.O. BOX 9133
CONCORD MA 01742-9133