Ex Parte Lee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 24, 201413212621 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAEMYOUNG LEE and JE SOO KO ____________ Appeal 2014-001906 Reissue Application 13/212,621 Patent 7,577,370 B2 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EVANS, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 19 and 203 as anticipated. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 The Real Party in Interest is Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute. 2 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2014-001906 Application 13/212,621 Patent 7,577,370 2 We REVERSE.4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek to reissue U.S. Patent 7,577,370 B2, issued Aug. 18, 2009, directed to a method and apparatus for extracting an optical clock signal with reduced influence of the pattern of an input optical signal by using characteristics of a Fabry-Perot laser diode. Spec. col. 1, ll. 15-19. Claims 1-18 were indicated to be allowable, and dependent Claims 21-25 were indicated as containing allowable subject matter, but objected to as depending from a rejected claim.5 Independent Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected as anticipated.6 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 20, which is reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized: 3 App. Br. 8. 4 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed July 4, 2013 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed October 21, 2013 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed August 21, 2013 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed February 7, 2013 (“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed August 18, 2011 (“Spec.”). 5 This reissue application passes the North American Container test for recapture. See N. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005); MPEP § 1412.02. No subject matter was canceled in parent application 11/580,357. 6 The broadened claims presented in this reissue application were filed within the 2-year statutory limit. See 35 U.S.C. § 251; MPEP § 1412.03. Appeal 2014-001906 Application 13/212,621 Patent 7,577,370 3 20. A method comprising: reflecting a first frequency component in an input optical signal; matching the reflected first frequency component with a first predetermined output mode; matching a second frequency component in the input optical signal with a second predetermined output mode; and beating the matched first frequency component and the matched second frequency component to extract a clock signal. References & Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Cundiff et al. US 2004/0017833 A1 Jan. 29, 2004 Ruiz US 2007/0091944 A1 Apr. 26, 2007 The reissue claims stand rejected as follows:7 1. Claim 20 stands rejected as under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cundiff. 2. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Ruiz. APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS 1. Cundiff fails to teach or suggest all of the limitations of Claim 20, because Cundiff does not disclose (App. Br. 9-13): a. matching the reflected first frequency component with a first predetermined output mode; b. matching a second frequency component in the input optical signal with a second predetermined output mode; and 7 Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2014-001906 Application 13/212,621 Patent 7,577,370 4 c. beating the matched first frequency component and the matched second frequency component to extract a clock signal. 2. Ruiz fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of Claims 19 and 20, because Ruiz does not disclose (App. Br. 13-17): a. a first Fabry-Perot laser diode configured to match the reflected first frequency component with a first predetermined output mode and output the matched first frequency component; b. a second Fabry-Perot laser diode configured to match a second frequency component in the input optical signal with a second predetermined output mode and output the matched second frequency; and c. a photodetector configured to beat the received frequency components to extract a clock signal. ISSUES ON APPEAL Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9-17) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 3-7), the issues presented on appeal are: I. Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Cundiff discloses matching the reflected first frequency component with a first predetermined output mode and matching a second frequency component in the input optical signal with a second predetermined output mode (hereinafter “mode matching”). II. Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Ruiz discloses matching the reflected first frequency component with a first predetermined output Appeal 2014-001906 Application 13/212,621 Patent 7,577,370 5 mode and matching a second frequency component in the input optical signal with a second predetermined output mode. CLAIM 20 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions. Appellants contend that Cundiff fails to teach or suggest “matching the reflected first frequency component with a first predetermined output mode” and “matching a second frequency component in the input optical signal with a second predetermined output mode,” as recited in Claim 20. App. Br. 11-12. Appellants argue that shifting a frequency through frequency shifter 1328 (Figure 13A) is not the same as “matching” a frequency component with a predetermined output mode. Appellants present the American Heritage Dictionary definition of matching: “to be exactly alike, to correspond exactly.” App. Br. 11. Therefore, Appellants argue, shifting the frequency of the signal 1322 is not matching the frequency component with a predetermined output mode. App. Br. 12. Likewise, Appellants contend that doubling a frequency through frequency doubler 1324 is not the same as “matching” a frequency component with a predetermined output mode. One of ordinary skill in the relevant art would not construe doubling a frequency, to be the same as matching the frequency component with a predetermined output mode. App. Br. 11-12. The Examiner finds that input optical signal 1316 of Cundiff is reflected at beam splitter 1318 to reflect first frequency component 1322 and the first frequency component is “matched” at frequency splitter 1328 with a Appeal 2014-001906 Application 13/212,621 Patent 7,577,370 6 first predetermined output mode, which is determined by control signal 1330. Ans. 3-4, 7. The Examiner further finds that a second frequency component 1320 of Cundiff is “matched” at frequency doubler 1324 with a second predetermined output mode. Ans. 4, 7. The Examiner points to an alternate definition of “matching” from the American Heritage Dictionary: “to find or produce a counterpart.” Ans. 7. The Examiner then defines “double” to be “composed of two like parts, double doors” and contends, therefore, that matching (i.e., producing a counterpart) is analogous to doubling (i.e., composing two like parts). Id. We agree with Appellants that shifting a frequency is not the same as mode matching (matching a frequency component with a predetermined output mode). Appellants’ Specification describes “match[ing a] first frequency component [of an input signal] with [a] predetermined output mode” as adjusting the intensity of the first frequency component to reach a desired output signal. Spec. col. 3, ll. 52-57; col. 6, ll. 38-42. Appellants’ discussion of mode matching of the input signal is consistent with the ordinary meaning in the art of mode matching, which is the “precise spatial matching of the electric field distributions of laser beams.”8 We do not find support in Cundiff for the required limitation of “matching a . . . frequency component [of an] input . . . signal with a . . . predetermined output mode” (emphases added). Cundiff is silent regarding output modes, electric field distributions, or intensity of the signals. Thus, we do not find that Cundiff teaches mode matching. 8 See RP Photonics Encyclopedia, http://www.rp-photonics.com/ mode_matching.html (last visited Mar. 19, 2014). Appeal 2014-001906 Application 13/212,621 Patent 7,577,370 7 In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of independent Claim 20. CLAIMS 19 AND 20 We agree with Appellants’ contention that Ruiz does not teach or suggest “a first Fabry-Perot laser diode configured to match the reflected first frequency component with a first predetermined output mode” and “a second Fabry-Perot laser diode configured to match a second frequency component in the input optical signal with a second predetermined output mode,” as required by Claim 19. App. Br. 14-15. Appellants argue that Ruiz does not teach the optical outputs 310 and 314 to be reflected and matched with a first and second output mode, respectively, and to output the matched first and second frequency components. App. Br. 15. Rather, once the optical outputs 310 and 314 are reflected by reflectors 308 and 312, respectively, the reflected signals are transmitted to a photodetector 316, but Ruiz does not describe a matching performed at the photodetector 316. Id. Appellants contend that similar arguments, supra, apply to Claim 20. App. Br. 16-17. The Examiner finds the first Fabry-Perot laser diode (Fig. 3, 302; Fig. 1, 110) is configured to match the reflected first frequency component with a first predetermined output mode and output the matched first frequency component, and the second Fabry-Perot laser diode (Fig 3, 304; Fig. 1, 112) is configured to match a second frequency component in the input optical signal with a second predetermined output mode and output the matched second frequency component. Ans. 4, 8. The Examiner contends Appeal 2014-001906 Application 13/212,621 Patent 7,577,370 8 the first laser 110 is configured to match the first frequency at 195.94h [sic] Terahertz (THz) at the output mode of 1530 nm and the second laser 112 is configured to match the second frequency at 195.879 THz at the output mode of 1530.5 nm. Ans. 8. The Examiner cites the American Heritage Dictionary's definition for “matching” of “to resemble or harmonize with,” and the definition for “tunable” is “to make it resonant with a given input signal.” Id. The Examiner contends, therefore, that “matching” and “tunable” are analogous terms. Id. Appellants respond that, assuming arguendo that tuning is the same as matching, there is still no evidence in Ruiz that a signal from the laser 110 or 112 is reflected and tuned with a predetermined output mode and a matched frequency component is output. Reply Br. 6. We agree with Appellants’ contention that Ruiz does not teach “match[ing] the reflected first frequency component with a first predetermined output mode” and “match[ing] a second frequency component in the input optical signal with a second predetermined output mode,” as required by Claims 19 and 20 (emphases added). Assuming the “first frequency component in an input optical signal” is 310 of Figure 3, we do not find support for both the “input optical signal” that is reflected and “output” from the Fabry-Perot laser that is matched to the reflected component of the input signal. There is only one output signal 310 from laser 302. If 310 is considered the “input optical signal,” then it is reflected into photodetector 316 but not matched (i.e., mode matching as discussed above) by a Fabry-Perot laser, as required by the claims. If signal 310 is considered the mode matched output of the Fabry-Perot laser, Ruiz does not Appeal 2014-001906 Application 13/212,621 Patent 7,577,370 9 disclose an input optical signal that is reflected into the Fabry-Perot laser to provide mode matching. Appellants also argue that Ruiz fails to teach or suggest “beating the matched . . . frequency component[s] . . . to extract a clock signal” (emphasis added). Because we find that Ruiz does not disclose the required matching of a first reflected frequency component and matching of a second frequency component, it follows that Ruiz also fails to disclose beating the components to extract a clock signal. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of independent Claims 19 and 20. DECISION The rejections of Claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 are REVERSED. REVERSED bab Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation