Ex Parte ChenDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 27, 201915493145 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/493,145 04/21/2017 11336 7590 07/01/2019 Litron Patent and Trademark Office l IF.-2, No.248, Sec. 3, Nanjing E. Rd. Songshan District Taipei City, 10595 TAIWAN FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Cheng Sean Chen 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 6135.00lUS 8786 EXAMINER ROJAS, OMAR R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2883 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/01/2019 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): miketeng@litron-intl.com j aniceshih@litron-intl.com laurachu@litron-intl.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHENG SEAN CHEN Appeal2019-000120 Application 15/493,145 Technology Center 2800 Before DONNA M. PRAISS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a cable assembly for converting electrical signals to optical signals. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1 reads: 1. A cable assembly, comprising: a cable, comprising at least one first fiber wire and at least one second fiber wire; and 1 We refer to the Specification ("Spec.") filed April 21, 2017; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") dated November 17, 2017; Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed May 31, 2018; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated August 1, 2018; and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed October 1, 2018. Appeal2019-000120 Application 15/ 493, 145 a first connector connected to the cable, wherein the first connector comprises: a first interface, for connecting with an external device to receive data therefrom; and at least one circuit board, wherein a plurality of devices are disposed on the at least one circuit board to form a circuitry, wherein the circuitry comprises at least one laser diode for emitting at least one optical signal to the at least one first fiber wire so as to transfer the data received from the external device and at least one first light-emitting diode (LED) for emitting a first visible light to the at least one second fiber wire of the cable. App. Br. 11 (Claims Appendix) ( emphasis added to highlight the key recitation in dispute). Claim 16 is directed to an earphone integrated with a cable assembly essentially as recited in claim 1. Each of the remaining claims on appeal depends from claim 1 or 16. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wu2 and Hosking. 3 II. Claims 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wu, Hosking, and Kim. 4 2 US 2015/0346448 Al, published December 3, 2015. 3 US 2010/0028014 Al, published February 4, 2010. 4 US 2007/0141915 Al, published June 21, 2007. 2 Appeal2019-000120 Application 15/ 493, 145 OPINION Appellant argues for patentability of the appealed claims on the basis of recitations found in claim 1, and does not separately argue independent claim 16 or any of the dependent claims. Accordingly, we focus our discussion on claim 1 as argued by Appellant; all other claims will stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). The Examiner finds that Wu discloses a cable comprising a plurality of optical fibers, an interface for connecting the optical fibers to an external device, and a circuit board, including a laser diode, configured to convert an electrical signal received from the external device to an optical signal emitted to the optical fibers. Final Act. 4. Appellant does not dispute the foregoing findings. See App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 7-12. The Examiner also finds that Wu teaches providing at least a portion of the optical fiber cable with a transparent portion, so that a visible component of transmitted light may be seen. Ans. 2-3 ( citing Wu ,r 67). See also Wu ,r 67 ("[V]isible light rays can pass through the transparent portion 133. That is, a color light in the optical fiber 131 can be viewed through the transparent portion 133."). According to Wu, "visible light penetrating through the transparent portion 13 3 can indicate a using status of the optical cable ... such as a status in transmitting signals or a status in supplying power." Wu ,r 67. The Examiner finds that Hosking teaches driving at least one LED to selectively emit visible light as status indicators on an optical transceiver. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3. According to Hosking, a controller module detects the status of a transmitter or receiver component of the transceiver, "and drives a multi-colored light-emitting diode (LED) based on the value detected." 3 Appeal2019-000120 Application 15/ 493, 145 Hosking ,r 9. Light emitted from the LED may be conducted to an opening on the transceiver by a light conductor such as a light-pipe. Id. Indicated status information includes "transmission status, operational status, diagnostic data, operational parameters, and the like." Id. ,r 8. In light of the foregoing teachings, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Wu's device with at least one controlled LED as taught by Hosking to permit selective visual display of operating status parameters. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 3. Appellant argues that Wu's cable device does not include a second fiber wire for transmitting light emitted by an LED and, instead, transmits optical data through all of the fibers. App. Br. 8. Appellant also argues that Hosking does not teach transmitting the LED-emitted status indicator light to "at least one second fiber wire" of the cable, as is recited in claim 1. Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellant additionally argues that it would "not make sense to replace the laser diode of the cited reference Wu with the LED diode of the cited references Hosking, because the LED diode of the cited reference Hosking is not used to generate an optical signal for transmitting data to an external device." Reply Br. 10-11. Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of 4 Appeal2019-000120 Application 15/ 493, 145 ordinary skill in the art." Id. Here, the Examiner presents evidence that Wu desires to transmit both data and visible status information through a plurality of optical fibers in an electro-optical transceiver, and Hosking teaches use of a controlled LED source as an advantageous device for providing visible status information in connection with an electro-optical transceiver. The fact that neither Wu nor Hosking expressly describes both those features in a single prior art reference is not persuasive of error in the Examiner's obviousness determination. Regarding Appellant's argument that it would not make sense to replace Wu's laser diode with Hosking's LED, we do not read the Examiner's statement of the rejection as involving such replacement. Rather, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious to supplement Wu's cable with a controlled LED, such as that taught by Hosking, to provide enhanced status indication within one or more of Wu's optical fibers. Having determined that Appellant has not shown reversible error, and because the Examiner's findings are supported by a preponderance of evidence, we sustain the rejections. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation