Ex Parte Miremadi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 16, 2013

10738807 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2013)

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.
10/738,807 12/17/2003 Reza Miremadi P00752-US1 7829
3017 7590 04/16/2013
BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD.
101 DYER STREET
5TH FLOOR
PROVIDENCE, RI 02903
EXAMINER
VAN ROY, TOD THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2828
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/16/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte REZA MIREMADI

________________

Appeal 2011-000088
Application 10/738,807
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN G. NEW, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000088
Application 10/738,807

2
SUMMARY
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-6 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kusano et al. (US 5,754,576, May 19,
1998) (“Kusano”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to utilizing two monitoring and
feedback loops to track the performance of the laser output as it relates both
to the environmental conditions and the effects that gradual changes in the
efficiency slope of the laser performance curve have on the modulation
amplitude of the laser. Abstract.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Because Appellant argues that the Examiner erred for substantially
the same reasons with respect to claims 1-6, we select claim 1 as
representative. App. Br. 9. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method of periodically testing the efficiency of a laser
diode and maintaining a constant modulation output for said
laser diode comprising, in order, the steps of:

selecting a first laser power output level;

applying a first bias to a laser diode, said first bias
energizing said laser diode and causing said laser diode to
generate output at said first power output level;
Appeal 2011-000088
Application 10/738,807

3

measuring and recording said first bias;

increasing said first bias by a gradual incremental step;

monitoring the increase in the power output of said laser
resulting from said incremental increase in said first bias;

repeating said steps of increasing, monitoring and
comparing until said laser reaches a predetermined higher
output drive requirement;

measuring and recording said increased bias at said
higher output drive requirement as a second bias;

calculating the efficiency of said laser diode using said
first and higher output levels and said first and second biases;
and

using said efficiency calculate a bias modulation value,
wherein application of said bias modulation value to said laser
causes said laser to modulate at a constant amplitude.

ISSUE
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Kusano
discloses the limitation of claim 1 reciting “repeating said steps of
increasing, monitoring and comparing until said laser reaches a
predetermined higher output drive requirement.” App. Br. 8. We therefore
address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Kusano discloses the application of an
increased drive current/increased bias based on a theoretical current that
Appeal 2011-000088
Application 10/738,807

4
should reach a second output level. App. Br. 8. Appellant contends that the
test disclosed by Kusano for determining the operational characteristic of
the laser is the actual modulation of the laser itself. Id. Appellant argues
that, when employing the test disclosed by Kusano, should the
environmental temperature decrease, the laser drive currents become much
lower and the use of a preselected value without regard for the ambient
temperature creates a greater potential for error and overdriving of the laser.
Id.
Appellant argues that, by way of contrast, Appellant’s invention
claims that, once a higher target second drive level is selected, small
incremental adjustments in the drive current are made to determine a small
increase in power output before applying a large modification to the drive
current, as required to maintain the laser at a constant operational extinction
ratio. App. Br. 8. Appellant alleges that this method reduces the possibility
of overdriving the laser. Id.
The Examiner responds that Figure 2 of Kusano discloses initial
(“P1”) and second (“P2”) predetermined output intensities and further
discloses that the driving current that produces P1 is increased in steps until
the proper ratio P1/P2 is achieved. Ans. 6. The Examiner also finds that
Kusano explicitly discloses that the bias current is increased in a “stepwise”
manner and varied at a constant rate at each adjustment until the ration
P1/P2 is achieved. Id. (citing col. 5, ll. 42-44; col. 26, ll. 25-30). The
Examiner finds that Kusano thus discloses applying the bias current in
incremental steps at a constant rate while monitoring to see if the desired
output power ratio (P1/P2) is realized and that the applied bias current is not
Appeal 2011-000088
Application 10/738,807

5
exceeding the maximum driving amount. Ans. 6-7. Therefore, finds the
Examiner, Kusano discloses the disputed limitation of claim 1.
We are persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning and adopt it as our
own. We find that Figure 2 of Kusano discloses that the bias current is
increased in an iterative manner until the predetermined laser output light
intensity is achieved. Kusano, Fig. 2, S2009-S2016; see Ans. 6. We further
find that Kusano discloses a “first mode in which the drive current to the
semiconductor is varied in stepwise on the basis of the output from the
detecting means and a specified value.” Kusano, col. 5, ll. 41-45; see Ans.
6. Kusano also discloses that, “since the degree of the variety in the drive
current at every data read is constant (DRLD is increased by 1 count)
during the first control, the SLOPE efficiency can be represented by the
increase in the intensity monitoring value at every read.” Kusano, col. 26,
ll. 25-29. Taken together, we find that Kusano therefore discloses the
limitation of claim 1 reciting “repeating said steps of increasing, monitoring
and comparing until said laser reaches a predetermined higher output drive
requirement.” See Ans. 6. We consequently conclude that the Examiner
did not err in so finding.

DECISION

The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. 102(b) is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1)(iv).
Appeal 2011-000088
Application 10/738,807

6

AFFIRMED

ELD