Ex Parte Houtsma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

13106619 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/106,619 05/12/2011
46850 7590 09/21/2016
MENDELSOHN DUNLEAVY, P.C.
1500 JOHN F. KENNEDY BL VD., SUITE 312
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vincent E. Houtsma
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.
809599-US-NP 5673
EXAMINER
V ANDERPUYE, KENNETH N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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):
docketing@mendelip.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINCENT E. HOUTSMA and NILS G. WEIMANN
Appeal2015-001764
Application 13/106,619
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-001764
Application 13/106,619
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 14--18, 20, 22, and 23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphasis added to
the disputed portions of the claim, reads as follows:
1. An optical receiver, comprising:
an optical hybrid configured to mix an optical signal
received at a first optical input port thereof with an optical
local-oscillator signal received at a second optical input port
thereof to generate first, second, third, and fourth mixed optical
signals at respective first, second, third and fourth optical
output ports thereof;
a first optical-to-electrical (O/E) converter including first
and second photo-detectors connected to receive optical signals
from the respective first and second optical output ports, the
first O/E converter having a first electrical port that outputs a
first electrical signal representative of a difference between
electrical signals produced by the respective first and second
photo-detectors;
a second O/E converter including third and fourth photo-
detectors connected to receive optical signals from the
respective third and fourth optical output ports, the second O/E
converter having a second electrical port that outputs a second
electrical signal representative of a difference between
electrical signals produced by the respective third and fourth
photo-detectors; and
an electrical power combiner connected to output a third
electrical signal that is proportional to a sum of a squared
2
Appeal2015-001764
Application 13/106,619
value of the first electrical signal received from the first DIE
converter at a time t and a squared value of the second
electrical signal received from the second O/E converter at said
time t.
Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 9, 14, 16-18, 20, 22, and 23
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Delavaux (US
5,060,312; issued Oct. 22, 1991) and Fu, Yang, HIGH LINEARITY
PHOTODIODE ARRAY WITH MONOLITHICALLY lNTEGRA TED WILKINSON
POWER COMBINER, pp. 1-3 (2010). Final Act. 4--12; Ans. 3-10.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 15 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Delavaux, Fu, and Lowery (US
2010/0247099 Al; published Sep. 30, 2010). Final Act. 12-13; Ans. 10-11.
(3) The Examiner rejected claim 8 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Delavaux, Fu, and Core (US 6,782,211 Bl; issued
Aug. 24; 2004). Final Act. 14--15; Ans. 12-13.
(4) The Examiner rejected claim 11 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Delavaux, Fu, and Wentzel, Andreas, NOVEL
BROADBAND WILKINSON POWER COMBINER, pp. 212-215 (2006). Final Act.
15-16; Ans. 13-14.
3
Appeal2015-001764
Application 13/106,619
Principal Issue on Appeal1
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-9)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-3), the following principal issue is
presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 14--18, 20, 22,
and 23 as being obvious over the base combination of Delavaux and Fu
because the combination fails to teach or suggest the optical receiver
including an electrical power combiner, as recited in representative
independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in the remaining claims 2-5, 8,
9, 11, 14--18, 20, 22, and 23?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 4--16) in light
of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-9) and the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2-3) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Advisory
Action mailed May 29, 2014 and the Examiner's response (Ans. 14--18) to
1 Appellants present detailed arguments on the merits only with respect to
claim 1 (App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2-3). Appellants rely on the arguments
presented for claim 1 as to the patentability of remaining claims 3-5, 9, 14,
16-18, 20, 22, and 23, which contain similar features (App. Br. 8).
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims
(claims 1, 3-5, 9, 14, 16-18, 20, 22, and 23) rejected for obviousness over
the combination of Delavaux and Fu.
With regard to the rejection of (i) claims 2 and 15 over the
combination of Delavaux, Fu, and Lowery, (ii) claim 8 over the combination
of Delavaux, Fu, and Core, and (iii) claim 11 over the combination of
Delavaux, Fu, and Wentzel, Appellants rely on the arguments already
presented with respect to representative claim 1 (App. Br. 8-9).
4
Appeal2015-001764
Application 13/106,619
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions.
With regard to representative claim 1, we concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner, and 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. 4--7; Ans. 3-5); (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Advisory Action mailed May 29, 2014; and, (3) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief (Ans. 14--18). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and
suggestions of the references, as well as certain of Appellants' arguments as
follows.
Appellants' Specification acknowledges that a Wilkinson power
combiner is old and well-known (Spec. 9:22-10:29). Furthermore, we agree
with the Examiner that Fu (Fig. 1; Section I. Introduction, i-f 2; Section B.
Linearity Measurement, i-f 2) teaches or suggests a Wilkinson power
combiner as recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 6; Ans. 5). In light of our
agreement with the Examiner's findings, as well as Appellants'
acknowledgement that Wilkinson power combiners are known, Appellants'
contentions that the combination of Delavaux and Fu fails to teach or
suggest the optical receiver set forth in claim 1 are not persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 1, 3-5, 9, 14, 16-18, 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on the base combination of Delavaux and Fu. For similar reasons, we also
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 2, 8, 11, and 15
(which rely on the same base combination of Delavaux and Fu).
5
Appeal2015-001764
Application 13/106,619
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 14--18,
20, 22, and 23 as being obvious over the base combination of Delavaux and
Fu because the base combination teaches or suggests the optical receiver
including an electrical power combiner, as set forth in claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 14--18, 20, 22, and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b) (2013).
AFFIRMED
6