Ex Parte Hilario et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201614219559 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 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. 14/219,559 03/19/2014 Alvin J. Hilario P20841US1 4607 65015 7590 12/23/2016 Trev7 T aw frmim EXAMINER 870 Market Street, Suite 984 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 LIU, LI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2636 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2016 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): docket @ treyzlawgroup. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALVIN J. HILARIO, JASON J. HUEY, KEVIN M. KEELER, JEFFREY M. ALVES, and JEFFREY J. TERLIZZI Appeal 2016-008684 Application 14/219,559 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2016-008684 Application 14/219,559 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to “optical data transfer utilizing lens isolation” (Spec.l 1). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system for optical data transfer, comprising: a first electronic device, comprising: at least one first device optical transmitter; at least one first device optical receiver; and at least one first device lens including at least a first optical path and a second optical path, the first optical path is optically isolated from the second optical data path; and wherein the at least one first device optical transmitter transmits utilizing at least the first optical path and the at least one first device optical receiver receives utilizing at least the second optical path. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5—9, 13, 15, and 18—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) as anticipated by Tolbert (US 5,122,893, issued June 16, 1992). The Examiner rejected claims 1—9, 13, 15, and 18—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) as anticipated by Euw (US 2004/0141753 Al, published July 22, 2004). The Examiner rejected claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Tolbert and Green (US 5,877,882, issued Mar. 2, 1999). The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Tolbert and Beuchat (US 5,224,942, issued July 6, 1993). 2 Appeal 2016-008684 Application 14/219,559 The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Tolbert, Beuchat, and Mizuno (US 2003/0231536, published Dec. 18, 2003). The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Tolbert, Mizuno, and Horio (US 2007/0230965, published Oct. 4, 2007). The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Tolbert and Fujiwara (US 2007/0147843, published June 28, 2007). The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Tolbert and Jiang (US 6,901,221, issued May 31, 2005). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Appellants’ claimed “device lens” reads on the multiple lens of Tolbert and Euw as the claims do not recite a single lens (Final Act. 4—5, 8; Ans. 21—22). We do not agree. Under an anticipation rejection all the elements of the claim must be met by the prior art. Appellants’ independent claim 1 recites an electronic device having “[having] at least one first device lens,” and independent claims 19 and 20 recite “one lens” with each lens having two optical paths. Thus, we do not agree claims 1,19, and 20 recite multiple lenses as the Examiner finds. We agree with Appellants that Tolbert and Euw disclose two separate lenses each having an optical path rather than one lens having at least two optical paths, as claimed (App. Br. 7—12; Reply Br. 2—5). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1,19, and 20, argued together and including 3 Appeal 2016-008684 Application 14/219,559 substantially the same limitations, and the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2—18, dependent from claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation