Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2016

12838129 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/838, 129 07/16/2010
5073 7590
BAKER BOTTS LLP,
2001 ROSS A VENUE
SUITE 600
DALLAS, TX 75201-2980
05/18/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
InwoongKim
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.
064731.0783 5624
EXAMINER
LIU,LI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2016 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte INWOONG KIM and OLGA I. V ASSILIEV A
Appeal2014-006732
Application 12/838, 129
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Fujitsu Limited. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-006732
Application 12/838, 129
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to cross-phase modulation noise reduced
transmission in hybrid networks. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads
as follows:
1. A method for receiving optical signals, comprising:
receiving a first set of one or more signals and a second
set of one or more signals,
wherein the first set of signals and the second set of
signals are separated by a guard band;
determining a block length used to process the first set of
signals, wherein the block length is based upon the width of the
guard band; and
processing the first set of signals using the block length.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 10-17, 20-27, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ooi et al. (US 2008/0199182 Al; published
Aug. 21, 2008) in view of Bertran-Pardo et al. ("Nonlinearity Limitations
When Mixing 40-Gb/s Coherent PDMQPSK Channels With Preexisting 10-
Gb/s NRZ Channels," IEEE Photonics Tech. Letters, Vol. 20, No 15, Aug.
1, 2008, pages 1314--16).
Claims 8, 9, 18, 19, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ooi, Bertran-Pardo, and
Chung et al (US 2010/0158531; published June 24, 2010).
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relied on Bertran-Pardo as
disclosing the recited steps of "determining a block length used to process
2
Appeal2014-006732
Application 12/838, 129
the first set of signals, wherein the block length is based upon the width of
the guard band" and "processing the first set of signals using the block
length." Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner found, based on Figure 4 of Bertran-
Pardo, that the averaging window is determined/optimized based on the
width of the bandgap (or guard band) and the received signals are processed
using the block length. Id. at 5 (citing Bertran-Pardo 1316).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "[t]here is no
relationship described in Bertran-Pardo between block length and guard
band, much less determining block length based upon a guard band." App.
Br. 9. Appellants explain that the block length is held constant in the
experiment of Bertran-Pardo where guard band is manipulated. Id.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not clearly identified
a teaching or suggestion in Bertran-Pardo that, alone or in combination with
Ooi, discloses the disputed claim steps. See Ans. 17-21. In particular, the
Examiner has not sufficiently supported the finding that Figure 4 in Bertran-
Pardo depicts that the averaging window is determined/optimized based on
the width of the bandgap. See Final Act. 5 (citing Bertran-Pardo p. 1316,
Fig. 4); Ans. 18. Each of other independent claims 11 and 21 recites
limitations similar to the "determining" and "processing" steps discussed
above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, on the record before us, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of independent claims 1, 11, and 21, or of claims 2-10,
12-20, and 22-30, dependent thereon.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-30 is reversed.
3
Appeal2014-006732
Application 12/838, 129
REVERSED
4