Ex Parte Bulow

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2015

12459511 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HENNING BULOW
____________________

Appeal 2013-002492
Application 12/459,511
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2013-002492
Application 12/459,511

STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–8. (App. Br. 1). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for compensating self-phase modulation at an optical
receiver of an optical transmission system using polarization division
multiplexing and a modulation scheme with constant amplitude, the method
comprising the steps of:
receiving a signal which comprises two signal components
associated with two orthogonal polarizations, the two signal
components comprising an in-phase subcomponent and a quadrature-
phase sub-component, thereby spanning a four-dimensional space;
and
performing a phase modulation on the received signal, wherein
the phase modulation is determined by evaluating an error signal
which depends on a distance in the four-dimensional space between
the received signal after the phase modulation and a four-dimensional
sphere defined by target constellation points of the optical
transmission system.

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Wu (US 7,606,498 B1; Oct. 20, 2009). 1
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2–8.
2

Appeal 2013-002492
Application 12/459,511

Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because:
[N]othing in the cited sections of Wu anticipates, teaches or
suggests “wherein the phase modulation is determined by
evaluating an error signal which depends on a distance in the
four-dimensional space between the received signal after the
phase modulation and a four-dimensional sphere defined by
target constellation points of the optical transmission system,”
as recited in independent [claim 1].
(App. Br. 7–8).
2. Further, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 because:
The Appellant’s invention is not anticipated, taught, or
suggested by the teachings by Wu regarding (1) a carrier
recovery block configured for a training mode while processing
a SYNC burst, and a data detection mode while recovering
transmitted data symbols; (2) once the SYNC symbols have
been processed, in data correction mode, the symbol phase error
Δϕ is updated at the symbol rate and used for rotating the phase
of each successive data symbol estimate; (3) the carrier detector
loop computes the phase rotation K(n) which compensates
phase errors of the symbol estimates X'(n) and Y'(n); and (4)
each successive value of the phase rotation K(n) may be
computed using a function of the form K(n+1) = K(n) + μ1Δϕ(n+1) +
μ1Ψ(n+1).
(App. Br. 9)(Emphasis added).
3. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1,
because:
Appellant respectfully observes that nothing in the prior art
anticipates, teaches, or suggests determining phase modulation
“wherein the phase modulation is determined by evaluating an
error signal which depends on a distance in the four-
dimensional space between the received signal after the phase
3
Appeal 2013-002492
Application 12/459,511

modulation and a four-dimensional sphere defined by target
constellation points of the optical transmission system,” as
recited in amended independent [claim 1]. The Appellant
further respectfully observes that Wu does not anticipate, teach
or suggest compensation of self-phase modulation, as taught by
the invention, and moreover, that Wu is not consistent with
these teachings.
(App. Br. 9–10).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated because Wu
fails on its face to describe the limitation required by these claims?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contention (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellant’s conclusions.
As to Appellant’s above contentions 1–3 directed to claim 1, we
disagree. We agree with the Examiner that “Appellant's arguments amount
to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without
specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably
distinguishes them from the references.” (Ans. 8). This is in effect an
argument that the Examiner’s rejection is in error on its face. We have
reviewed the rejection and do not agree. See, e.g., Ex parte Cabral, No.
2010-001572, 2012 WL 683718, at *3 (BPAI 2012) (non-precedential)
(“Apart from summarily asserting that Prabhakar does not teach or suggest
the features of the dependent claims (App. Br. 10-11), Appellant does not
particularly show error in the Examiner’s rejection. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (noting that an argument that merely points out what a
4
Appeal 2013-002492
Application 12/459,511

claim recites is unpersuasive); accord In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art.”).

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–8 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) Claims 1–8 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 1–8 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

gvw
5