Ex Parte Fattal et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201612994118 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/994,118 11/22/2010 David A. Fattal 56436 7590 02/29/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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. 82554389 1833 EXAMINER LEPISTO, RYAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2883 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/29/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte DAVID A. FATTAL, DUNCAN STEWART, and WEI WU Appeal2014-002390 Application 12/994, 118 Technology Center 2800 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's May 13, 2013 decision finally rejecting claims 1-5, 12-17, and 202 ("Final Act."). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, which is a wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett- Packard Company (Appeal Br. 2). 2 Appellants state that claims 6-11, 18, and 19 are allowed and are not on appeal (Appeal Br. 4). Appeal2014-002390 Application I 2/994, I I 8 CLAHvIED SUBJECT ivIATTER Appellants' invention is directed to an optical interconnect which has first and second optical waveguides which are substantially perpendicular to one another (Abstract). An optical grating is disposed between the waveguides and is evanescently coupled to them (id.). The optical grating includes a plurality of perforated rows that are oriented at an angle of approximately 45 degrees with respect to the first and second optical waveguides (id.). The claimed interconnect is illustrated by the following annotated version of FIG. IA from the Specification: 0 0 0 0 0 'b_aaooo 001!!\,SOOOOOooO oo'll.ooo OOtl_ooO ooo~,oo o o a s o o 0000'3.o ooooh,o 00000'1!1,. 00000"1 r-----io o o o o o 000000 000000 000000 00001;)0 o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o o o o 000000 o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o a o 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o a o o o a a o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o a o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o o o o Q 0 0 0 0 0 'l!\..!SI 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 o'G.oooo oQ.oooo 00£1..000 0 0 <."t 0 D 0 oool;ioo 0 0 0 'Q. 0 0 ooool!'l,,a 000000000~\~0 0 0 0 0 0 't\. 0 0 0 0 0 0 "", Fig. -IA This annotated version of FIG. IA is a front view of an illustrative optical interconnect according to Appellants' invention. 2 Appeal2014-002390 Application 12/994, 118 Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief: 1. An optical interconnect, comprising: first and second substantially perpendicular optical waveguides; and an optical grating disposed between and evanescently coupled to said first and second optical waveguides; wherein said optical grating comprises a plurality of perforated rows oriented at an angle of approximately 45 degrees with respect to said first and second optical waveguides. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 3-5, 12-14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Domash3 in view of Taillaert.4 II. Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Domash in view of Taillaert. 3 Domash et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,567,573 Bl, issued May 20, 2003. 4 Taillaert et al., U.S. Patent Pub. 2003/0235370 Al, published December 25, 2003. 3 Appeal2014-002390 Application 12/994, 118 DISCUSSION Appellants make separate, substantive arguments in support of claims 1, 16, and 17. 5 The remaining claims will stand or fall with the claim from which each depends. With regards to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Domash teaches each element of claim 1, except that Domash does not expressly teach that the rows on the optical grating are perforated (Final Act. 4--5). The Examiner finds that Taillaert discloses that an optical grating in an optical grating interconnect can consist of a pattern of grooves, channels, cavities or holes (Final Act. 5, citing Taillaert i-f 30). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Domash's grating to include perforated holes because doing so would increase coupling options (id.). Appellants contend that "the grating taught by Domash is an Electronically Switchable Bragg Grating (ESBG) and not an optical grating with perforated rows as claimed" (Appeal Br. 9). Appellants do not dispute that Domash's grating is evanescently coupled to its waveguides (Reply Br. 5---6). However, Appellants argue that Taillaert's device "operates on entirely different principles from both Domash and the claimed subject matter" (Appeal Br. 10), and state that there is no evidence that Taillaert's perforated grating could be used in place of Domash' s ESBG and still produce a functional device (Appeal Br. 11 ). Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. As noted above, Appellants acknowledge that Domash' s grating is evanescently coupled to its waveguides (Reply Br. 5---6). Thus, even if Taillaert's grating could not 5 Appellants identify claim 12 as being separately argued, but the arguments are the same as are made in support of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 13). 4 Appeal2014-002390 Application 12/994, 118 reasonably be expected to be used in Domash's device - a factual assertion we do not address - this would not require reversal of the rejection. The Examiner finds that Taillaert teaches a grating for an optical interconnect where the grating can consist of a pattern of grooves, channels, cavities, or holes (Final Act. 5, citing Taillaert i-f 30). The Examiner relies on Taillaert "to show that gratings can be formed from a pattern of grooves, channels[,] cavities or holes" (Ans. 3--4). As found by the Examiner, "[n]o change in the operation or elimination of the coupling type of Domash is necessary if the grating is formed by perforated hole instead of grooves" (Ans. 4--5). Appellants assert error in the finding because, according to Appellants, "[Paragraph 30 of] Taillaert does not state or suggest, that any hole type grating would be a suitable substitute for any groove type grating in any particular application" (Reply Br. 6). However, using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and in view of the language found in Taillaert's Paragraph 30, we find that Appellants have not demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner's finding that Taillaert teaches that "gratings can be formed from a pattern of grooves, channels[,] cavities or holes" ("Ans. 3--4). Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants have not shown error in the obviousness rejection of claim 1. With regards to claim 16, Appellants contend that Domash does not disclose that the optical grating may be formed of silicon, silicon dioxide, or silicon nitride (Appeal Br. 14). In particular, Appellants argue that the passage of Domash relied on by the Examiner to disclose the use of the recited materials refers to the waveguides, not the grating (id.). The Examiner finds that Domash teaches that the fabrication of the grating 5 Appeal2014-002390 Application 12/994, 118 generally involves depositing the grating upon a silicon microstructure to form a silicon dioxide optical cladding for the waveguide, all of which (the silicon base, the liquid precursor, and the covering cladding) forms the grating structure (Ans. 5, citing Domash, 13:27--45). Therefore, according to the Examiner, the grating is formed in part using the claimed materials (id.). Appellants argue that the passage relied on by the Examiner shows that Domash' s grating "is formed exclusively from H-PLDC or holographic polymer/dispersed liquid crystals" (Reply Br. 9). However, the passage explicitly states that the fabrication process for the grating includes a process which involves "depositing a H-PDLC liquid precursor solution by application onto silicon that contains a relief groove or V groove" (Domash 13:27-32). The subsequently described steps do not remove the silicon from the grating. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Domash discloses a grating which is formed from silicon, thereby meeting the limitations of claim 16. Finally, with regards to claim 17, Appellants argue that Domash does not disclose dividing a beam by evanescent coupling using perforated rows of an optical grating (Appeal Br. 14--15, Reply Br. 9-10). However, as the Examiner finds, Domash teaches coupling the beam from one of the waveguides to the other to divide the beam between them (Ans. 5, citing Domash 30: 1-20). The Examiner finds that Domash does not teach that this coupling is not done using perforated rows, the Examiner further determines that this feature is taught by and would have been obvious in view of Taillaert's teachings regarding perforated gratings (id.). 6 Appeal2014-002390 Application 12/994, 118 In essence, Appellants' argument in support of the patentability of claim 17 is the same as the argument in favor of claim 1, and is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 12-14, 16, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Domash in view of Taillaert. We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 2 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Domash in view of Taillaert. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation