Ex Parte Graves et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201609783002 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 09/783,002 02/15/2001 Alan F. Graves 120-351 6057 34845 7590 Anderson Gorecki LLP 33 NAGOG PARK ACTON, MA 01720 12/29/2016 EXAMINER CURS, NATHAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2636 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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): handerson @ smmalaw.com cmorrissette@smmalaw.com j gorecki @ smmalaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALAN F. GRAVES and JOHN G. GRUBER Appeal 2015-001748 Application 09/783,002 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2015-001748 Application 09/783,002 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—3 and 10-21. Claims 4 through 9 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Exemplary Claims Exemplary independent claims 1 and 20 under appeal, with underlining and italic emphases added, read as follows: 1. A photonic network node comprising: photonic switch fabric for forwarding an optical signal comprising a plurality of channels; means for monitoring the optical signal before and after the photonic switch fabric; means for reducing a variance between inputs to the photonic network node by applying a dynamically adjusted bulk compensation to all channels of the optical signal; means for demultiplexing the optical signal into the plurality of channels; means for dynamically, adjustably compensating for individual channel amplitude impairment responsive to the monitoring means, based at least in part on output carrier power, and means for multiplexing a plurality of channels into an output optical signal. 2 Appeal 2015-001748 Application 09/783,002 20. A photonic network node comprising: at least one bulk compensator operative to reduce variance between inputs of an optical signal received at the photonic network node, thereby producing a compensated optical signal; at least one demultiplexor for demultiplexing the compensated optical signal to produce a plurality of wavelengths; at least one multiplexer for multiplexing the plurality of wavelengths into a wavelength division multiplexed signal; and at least one optical compensation element operative to dynamically control amplitude of a single one of the plurality of wavelengths based at least in-part on amplitude of an output carrier associated with the single wavelength. The Examiner’s Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1,2, 11, 12, and 20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Tsushima (US 6,424,445 Bl; issued July 23, 2002), Eggleton (US 6,370,300 Bl; issued Apr. 9, 2002), and Fukashiro (US 6,362,905 Bl; issued Mar. 26, 2002). Final Act. 2—5; Ans. 2—5. (2) The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Tsushima, Eggleton, Fukashiro, and Patterson (US 6,356,684 Bl; issued Mar. 12, 2002). Final Act. 5; Ans. 5—6. (3) The Examiner rejected claim 10 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Tsushima, Eggleton, Fukashiro, and Arecco (US 6,973,267 Bl; issued Dec. 6, 2005). Final Act. 6; Ans. 6. 3 Appeal 2015-001748 Application 09/783,002 (4) The Examiner rejected claims 13, 16, and 17 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Fukashiro and Eggleton. Final Act. 6—8; Ans. 6—8. (5) The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 15 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Fukashiro, Eggleton, and Tsushima. Final Act. 8—9; Ans. 8—9. (6) The Examiner rejected claim 18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Fukashiro, Eggleton, and Patterson. Final Act. 9; Ans. 9. (7) The Examiner rejected claim 19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Fukashiro, Eggleton, and Chaudhuri (US 6,587,235 Bl; issued July 1, 2003). Final Act. 10; Ans. 10. Issues on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6—15) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 3—17), the following issues are presented on appeal: (1) Have Appellants adequately shown the Examiner erred in determining that the base combination of: (a) Tsushima, Eggleton, and Fukashiro teaches or suggests dynamically and adjustably compensating for individual channel impairment, as recited in independent claim 1 and claims 3 and 10-12 depending therefrom; and/or (b) Fukashiro and Eggleton teaches or suggests the commensurate limitations recited in independent claim 13 and claims 14—18 depending therefrom? 4 Appeal 2015-001748 Application 09/783,002 (3) Have Appellants adequately shown the Examiner erred in determining that the base combination of Tsushima, Eggleton, and Fukashiro teaches or suggests an optical compensation element that can “dynamically control amplitude of a single one of the plurality of wavelengths,” as recited in independent claim 20 and claim 21 depending therefrom? (3) Have Appellants adequately shown the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Tsushima, Eggleton, and Fukashiro teaches or suggests optical switch planes, as recited in claim 2? (4) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 19 over the combination of Fukashiro, Eggleton, and Chaudhuri because Chaudhuri fails to teach or suggest interfacing electrical signaling network nodes as recited? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 2—10; Ans. 2—10) in light of Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6— 14) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 3—16) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 11—15). As to claims 1,2, 13, and 19, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. As to claims 20 and 21, we agree with Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. Claims 20 and 21 Appellants argue that “the claims recite controlling an amplitude” (Reply Br. 12, without specifying a claim), and therefore Fukashiro fails to teach or suggest the recited dynamic control of amplitude limitations of claims 1, 13, and 20 (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 12—13). However, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 13—14) that claims 1 and 13 do not actually require dynamic adjustment or control of an amplitude. Indeed, although claim 1 5 Appeal 2015-001748 Application 09/783,002 recites “dynamically, adjustably compensating for individual channel amplitude impairment” (claim 1) (emphasis added), and claim 13 recites “performing dynamically adjustable amplitude impairment compensation” (claim 13) (emphasis added), claim 20 more positively recites an optical compensation element “operative to dynamically control amplitude” (claim 20)(emphasis added). Further, we find the Examiner insufficiently addresses whether or not Fukashiro discloses dynamic control of an amplitude (see Ans. 13—14). Therefore, Appellants’ arguments are persuasive only as to claim 20 (and claim 21 which depends therefrom), since claim 20 recites an optical compensation element “operative to dynamically control amplitude” (claim 20)(emphasis added). As a result, we are constrained by the record before us not to sustain the Examiner’s obvious rejections of claims 20 and 21 which both contain the disputed feature of dynamically controlling the amplitude of a single one of a wavelength from amongst plural wavelengths that have been demultiplexed from a compensated optical signal. Claims 1, 3, and 10—18 Appellants present arguments to claims 1, 11, 12, and 20 as a group, primarily arguing independent claim 1 (App. Br. 6—11; Reply Br. 3—13). Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 11 and 12 contain similar features related to photonic network node that dynamically and adjustably compensates for individual channel amplitude impairment. We select claim 1 as representative of claims 1,11, and 12. Claim 3 is argued for the same reasons as claim 1 from which it depends (see App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 13). Claim 10 is also argued for the same reasons as claim 1 from which it also 6 Appeal 2015-001748 Application 09/783,002 depends (see App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 13—14). Therefore, the outcome of claims 3 and 10—12 will fall with the outcome as to claim 1. Appellants present arguments to claims 13, 16, and 17 as a group, primarily arguing independent claim 13 (App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 14—16). Independent claim 13 and dependent claims 16 and 17 contain similar features related to photonic network node “for performing dynamically adjustable amplitude impairment compensation on each one of’ plural optical signal channels. We select claim 13 as representative of claims 13, 16, and 17. Claims 14 and 15 are argued for the same reasons as claim 13 from which these claims depend (see App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 16). Claim 18 is also argued for the same reasons as claim 13 from which it also depends (see App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 16). Therefore, the outcome of claims 14—18 will fall with the outcome as to claim 13. With regard to representative independent claims 1 and 13, we disagree with Appellants’ contentions, and specifically Appellants’ contentions enumerated above in our discussion of claims 20 and 21 (see App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 12—13). With regard to independent claims 1 and 13, we concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—\ and 6—8; Ans. 2-4 and 6—8), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 11—14). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of Appellants’ arguments as follows. With regard to claim 1, Appellants’ arguments that there is no motivation for making the combination of Tsushima, Eggleton, and 7 Appeal 2015-001748 Application 09/783,002 Fukashiro (App. Br. 6—11) are unpersuasive. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s articulations (Final Act. 3; Ans. 11—13) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’ claimed invention to (1): use adjustable bulk compensation at the multiplexed input signal entering the node of Tsushima et al, in order to variably compensate for wavelength dispersion accumulated upstream in the network due to non-linear effects and environmental changes in the network, as taught by Eggleton et al. (col. 2, lines 41—54) (Final Act. 3); and (2): use performance monitoring on each of the channel inputs and outputs of the optical switch of Tsushima et al., as well as redundant switch fabric functionality based on Fukashiro et al., to provide the ability to monitor individual signal performance and/or failure for the individual signal channels, as well as to compensate for a switch fabric failure, as taught by Fukashiro et al. (Id.) With regard to claim 13, Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 12) that Fukashiro merely discloses a repeater, and thus, fails to teach dynamically adjusting amplitude impairment compensation, is unpersuasive for reasons already discussed above in our discussion of claims 20 and 21, and for the reasons provided by the Examiner at pages 13—14 of the Answer. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the inventions recited in representative independent claims 1 and 13 have not been shown to be patentably distinguishable from the combined teachings of the respective combinations of either (i) Tsushima, Eggleton, and Fukashiro; and/or (ii) Fukashiro and Eggleton, as applied by the Examiner. 8 Appeal 2015-001748 Application 09/783,002 Claim 2 We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 4; Ans. 4) that Fukashiro’s optical switch units 10-1 and 10-2 (shown in Figure 11 and described from column 13, line 30 to column 14, line 10) meet the limitation in claim 2 of “optical switch planes” to the extent the terms “plane” or “optical switch plane” are limited or defined in the Specification. In particular, Appellants have not rebutted, with argument or evidence, the Examiner’s cogent analysis and explanation of how Appellants’ Specification (see Ans. 14 citing Spec. 17 and 18, various lines of both pages) actually supports the Examiner’s interpretation (Ans. 14). In view of the foregoing, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error with regard to claim 2. Claim 19 We also agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 10; Ans. 10 and 14—15) that Chaudhuri’s Figure 5 and column 5 teach or suggest interfacing with electrical signaling network nodes, including interfacing and operating in the electrical domain. More specifically, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 15) that Chaudhuri discloses optical layer cross-connect switches (OLXC) 505, 535, 560, and 585 for plural nodes (col. 5,11. 24—26) that “function[] as an optical switch including optical and electrical components for any necessary conversion (optical-to-electrical or electrical-to-optical) of the switched output communication signals” (see col. 5,11. 33—36). And, Chaudhuri further discloses optical-to-electrical transducers as described at column 5, lines 49-50. As a result, Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 16) that Chaudhuri’s node is not the equivalent of the recited electrical signaling network nodes because the optical output of an optical-electrical-optical 9 Appeal 2015-001748 Application 09/783,002 (OEO) switch is not in the electrical domain, are unpersuasive as to Examiner error with regard to claim 19. CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellants have not adequately shown the Examiner erred in determining that the base combination of: (a) Tsushima, Eggleton, and Fukashiro teaches or suggests dynamically and adjustably compensating for individual channel impairment, as recited in independent claim 1 and claims 3 and 10-12 depending therefrom; and/or (b) Fukashiro and Eggleton teaches or suggests the commensurate limitations recited in independent claim 13 and claims 14—18 depending therefrom. (3) The Examiner erred in determining that the base combination of Tsushima, Eggleton, and Fukashiro teaches or suggests an optical compensation element that can “dynamically control amplitude of a single one of the plurality of wavelengths,” as recited in independent claim 20 and claim 21 depending therefrom. (3) Appellants have not adequately shown the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Tsushima, Eggleton, and Fukashiro teaches or suggests optical switch planes, as recited in claim 2. (4) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 19 over the combination of Fukashiro, Eggleton, and Chaudhuri because Chaudhuri teaches or suggests interfacing electrical signaling network nodes as recited. 10 Appeal 2015-001748 Application 09/783,002 DECISION (1) The Examiner’s remaining rejections of claims 1—3 and 10—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. (2) The Examiner’s rejections of claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the base combination of Tsushima, Eggleton, and Fukashiro are reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation