Ex Parte Cune et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2018

15049913 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/049,913 02/22/2016
115615 7590 04/19/2018
W &T/Corning
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William Patrick Cune
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.
HI10-045A2 4394
EXAMINER
CORS, NATHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2018 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM PA TRICK CUNE, MICHAEL SAUER, and
WOLFGANG GOTTFRIED TOBIAS SCHWEIKER
Appeal2017-010952
Application 15/049,913
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-19. 1 App. Br. 18. Claim 23 has been canceled. Claims App'x.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2
We affirm.
1 Claims 20-22 and 24--26 have been allowed. Final Act 12.
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Coming Optical
Communications LLC (formerly Coming Cable Systems LLC). App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010952
Application 15/049,913
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to an
optical fiber distributed communication system (90) including a head-end
unit (HEU-12) and a digital data services (DDS) controller for distributing
radio frequency (RF) communications and DDS over a downlink/uplink
optical fiber (16D/16U) to one or more client devices (24) in an antenna
coverage area (20) via a remote antenna unit (RAU-14). Spec. i-fi-19, 32, Fig.
1. 3 In particular, upon receiving at least one downlink/uplink electrical RF
communication signal (18D), the HEU (12) uses an electrical-to-optical
(E/O) converter (28) to convert the received RF signal (18D) into an optical
RF communication signal (22D) counterpart. Id. Subsequently, the DDS
controller (94) forwards a received downlink optical digital signal including
one DDS over a second downlink to the RAU (14). Id. Alternatively, the
HEU (12) distributes the downlink optical RF communications signal and
the downlink optical digital signal containing the DDS over a common
optical fiber (84 ). Id. i-fi-1 8, 48, 49.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A method for distributing radio frequency (RF) communications
and digital data services (DDS) to at least one remote antenna unit
(RAU), comprising:
receiving, at a head-end unit (HEU), at least one downlink
electrical RF communications signal;
converting, at the HEU, the at least one downlink electrical RF
communications signal into at least one downlink optical RF
3 We herein refer to the Specification filed Feb. 22, 2016 ("Spec.") and Final
Action mailed Nov. 25, 2016 ("Final Act."). See also n. 4 below.
2
Appeal2017-010952
Application 15/049,913
communications signal to be communicated over at least one
communications downlink to the at least one RAU;
receiving, at the HEU, at least one uplink optical RF
communications signal over at least one communications uplink from
the at least one RAU;
converting the at least one uplink optical RF communications
signal into at least one uplink electrical RF communications signal;
receiving at least one downlink electrical signal containing at
least one DDS;
converting the at least one downlink electrical signal containing
at least one DDS to at least one downlink optical digital signal
containing at least one DDS;
providing the at least one downlink optical digital signal
containing at least one DDS over at least one second communications
downlink to the at least one RAU;
receiving at least one uplink optical digital signal over at least
one second communications uplink from the at least one RAU;
converting the at least one uplink optical digital signal to at
least one uplink electrical digital signal; and
distributing at least one of the at least one downlink optical RF
communications signal and at least one of the at least one downlink
optical digital signal containing at least one DDS over a common
optical fiber,
wherein the at least one communications downlink and the at
least one communications uplink include at least one optical fiber.
(App. Br. Claims Appendix, 19).
Prior Art Relied upon
Wake et al. US 2005/0226625 Al published Oct. 13, 2005
(hereinafter "Wake")
Wei et al. US 2009/0092394 Al published Apr. 9, 2009
(hereinafter "Wei")
3
Appeal2017-010952
Application 15/049,913
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1--4, 9, and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wake. Final Act. 2---6.
Claims 5-8, 10, 11, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination Wake and Wei. Final
Act. 6-12.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 5-18, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-10. 4 We are
unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
hereinafter, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Final Action, and the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief. Final Act. 2-14; Ans. 2-20. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
First, Appellants argue that Wake does not teach or suggest
distributing a downlink optical RF communications signal and a downlink
optical digital signal containing a DDS over a common optical fiber, as
recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 6. In particular, Appellants argue
that Wake merely discloses using wave division multiplexing (WDM) to
combine optical energy from a power laser and data laser at the central unit
over a single optical fiber. Id. at 7 (citing Wake i-f 15). According to
4 Rather than reiterate all the arguments of Appellants and all the Examiner's
findings, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 24, 2017) ("App Br."), the
Reply Brief (filed August 18, 2017) ("Reply Br."), and the Answer (mailed
June 22, 2017) ("Ans.") for the respective details. We have considered in
this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
4
Appeal2017-010952
Application 15/049,913
Appellants, Wake's disclosure of using WDM to combine the same type of
optical energy from two different laser sources does not teach or suggest
combining the two different types of optical signals (downlink optical RF +
downlink optical DSS) as required by the claim. Id. at 7, 10-12. Further,
Appellants argue that the proposed modification of Wake would at best
result in combining the same type of signal (RF or DSS) from two different
laser sources for subsequent transmission over a single optical fiber. Id. at
12. Furthermore, Appellants argue that Wake's disclosure of using a
separate digital link including a pair of optical transceivers 20a, 20b teaches
away from combining RF signals and DSS signals for transmission. Id. at
12-14 (citing Wake i-fi-137, 31-38).
These arguments are not persuasive. At the outset, we note
Appellants' acknowledgment that digital data services are known to be
distributed over common optical fiber with RF communication services at
different wavelengths through wavelength division multiplexing (WDM)
and/or at different frequencies through frequency division multiplexing
(FDM). Spec. i18; Reply Br. 4--5. As further acknowledged by Appellants
(App. Br. 11 ), Wake discloses using WDM to combine optical energy from a
power laser and a data laser at a central unit over a single fiber. Wake i-f 15.
Likewise, Appellants acknowledge (App. Br. 12) Wake's teaching of
transmitting RF signals and digitals signals separately via multiple fibers.
Wake i1 3 7. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art,
being apprised of the knowledge that WDM is known as a tool for
combining an optical RF signal and an optical digital signal in a common
fiber, would modify Wake's teachings as proposed by the Examiner for the
purpose of reducing the amount of fibers required in a connecting cable for
5
Appeal2017-010952
Application 15/049,913
transmitting the signals from a central transceiver to a remote unit. Ans. 15-
16 (citing Wake i-f 15). We further agree with the Examiner that Wake's
disclosure of providing optical links for transmitting separately RF signals
and digital signals is a mere alternative embodiment to the former
embodiment discussed above. Id. at 16-17 (citing Wake i-f 37). Thus, while
the alternative embodiment presents another way of transmitting signals
between two locations, it is not a criticism or discredit of the former. See In
re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We are therefore satisfied that
the cited disclosures of Wake teach or suggest the disputed limitations.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2--4, 9, and 12-15, because
Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or
have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, those claims fall therewith. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
Regarding the rejection of claims 5-8, 10, 11, and 16-19, to the extent
Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or
have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, those claims fall therewith. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii). Further, to the extent Appellants have raised
additional arguments for patentability of these claims, we find that the
Examiner has rebutted in the Answer each and every one of those arguments
by a preponderance of the evidence. Answer 18-20. We adopt the
Examiner's findings and underlying reasoning, which we incorporate herein
by reference. Because Appellants have failed to persuasively rebut the
6
Appeal2017-010952
Application 15/049,913
Examiner's findings regarding the rejections of claims 5-8, 10, 11, and 16-
19, Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner's rejection of these
claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-19.
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
7