Ex Parte Dahlfort et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 14, 2016

13257706 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/257,706 09/20/2011
27045 7590
ERICSSON INC
6300 LEGACY DRIVE
MIS EVR 1-C-11
PLANO, TX 75024
06/16/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stefan Dahlfort
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.
P27619-US1 9533
EXAMINER
V ANDERPUYE, KENNETH N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2016 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):
kara.coffman@ericsson.com
kathryn.lopez@ericsson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEP AN DAHLFOR T and PETER OHLEN
Appeal2014-009841
Application 13/257,706
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-7. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.
(App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-009841
Application 13/257,706
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed invention generally relates to automatic tuning in a
wavelength division multiplexing passive optical network (WDM-PON).
(Title, Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A method in an optical network termination for use in a
wavelength division multiplexing passive optical system, the
method comprising:
receiving one optical sub-signal extracted from a
multiplexed optical downstream signal that was transmitted from
an optical line terminal via a passive distribution node,
identifying the received sub-signal,
and the method characterized in:
setting an optical wavelength of an upstream optical signal
as a function of a predefined relationship between an optical
wavelength of the received sub-signal and the optical wavelength
of the upstream signal, wherein the predefined wavelength
relationship is implemented as a difference infilteringproperties
of a filter device for the identifYing of the received sub-signal and
a filter device for the setting of the wavelength of the upstream
signal, and
transmitting the upstream signal to the optical line
terminal via the passive distribution node.
Rejection
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Harada (US 2004/0179855 Al, published Sept. 16, 2004) and Ikai et al.
(US 2008/0050115 Al, published Feb. 28, 2008). (Final Act. 3-11.)
2
Appeal2014-009841
Application 13/257,706
ISSUE2
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants' contentions is whether the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Harada and Ikai teaches
wherein the predefined wavelength relationship is implemented as a
difference in filtering properties of a filter device for the identifYing of the
received sub-signal and a filter device for the setting of the wavelength of
the upstream signal (hereinafter, "the filtering properties limitation"), as
recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 6, which is
incorporated into claim 7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 3-9; Reply Br. 1-5). We concur
with Appellants' argument (App. Br. 5-7) that the Examiner has not shown
Ikai teaches the filtering properties limitation recited in claim 1. In
particular, Appellants argue Ikai does not teach how the correspondence
between received wavelengths and transmission wavelengths is determined.
(App. Br. 5.) Appellants contend Ikai's table of correspondence between
wavelengths and the use of filters to tune transmitters is not sufficient to
teach the predefined wavelength relationship is implemented as a difference
in filtering properties of the recited filtering devices. (Id.) Under our
interpretation of the filtering properties limitation, we agree with Appellants'
arguments.
2 Because this issue is dispositive, we do not address additional issues raised
by Appellants' arguments.
3
Appeal2014-009841
Application 13/257,706
Claim 1 expressly recites setting the wavelength of the upstream
signal using a filter. Therefore, the claim phrase requiring that the
predefined wavelength relationship is implemented as a difference in
filtering properties must refer to more than merely using a filter to set a
desired wavelength of the upstream signal, where the desired wavelength
was determined by some other means, such as a correspondence table.
Accordingly, we interpret the filtering properties limitation to require that
the wavelength relationship be predefined using filter hardware. (See Spec.
17:9-18:17.) Under this broadest reasonable interpretation, the wavelength
of any upstream optical signal is determined only by (1) the downstream
wavelength and (2) the difference in fixed physical properties of (a) the filter
device for identifying the downstream sub-signal and (b) the filter device for
setting the wavelength of the upstream signal. Stated differently, the
filtering properties limitation of claim 1 requires that the relationship
between upstream and downstream wavelengths be defined by filter
components rather than by separately controlling inputs to the filters. 3
The Examiner has shown Ikai uses filters on the receiver and
transmitter to detect and set wavelengths (Ans. 12-13), and that there is a
predefined relationship between wavelengths (Ans. 13-14), but has not
3 In one example given in the Specification, the difference in filter tuning
ranges defines the relationship between wavelengths. (See Spec. 18:1-10.)
By "arranging the filter for the receiver with a first tuning range (determined
by the grating period in case of a Bragg reflection filter) and arranging the
filter for the transmitter with a second tuning range" (Spec. 18:2--4), and
then "adapting the transmitter filter to be tuned linearly with the receiver
filter" (Spec. 18:6-7), a given downstream wavelength will result in
transmitting the corresponding upstream wavelength without providing an
independent input to the transmitting filter based on a calculation,
wavelength correspondence table, etc.
4
Appeal2014-009841
Application 13/257,706
shown the cited portions of lkai teach the predefined wavelength
relationship is implemented as a difference in filtering properties, under the
broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim limitation in light of the
Specification. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harada and
Ikai. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 2-5.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7.
REVERSED
5