Ex Parte NeilsonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 16, 201411614325 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2014) 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. 11/614,325 12/21/2006 David T. Neilson Neilson 24 9186 46850 7590 01/17/2014 MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & DUNLEAVY, P.C. 1500 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD., SUITE 312 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 EXAMINER CURS, NATHAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2636 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/17/2014 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 DAVID T. NEILSON _____________ Appeal 2011-005701 Application 11/614,325 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, DAVID M. KOHUT, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005701 Application 11/614,325 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method and optical transmitter that use half-rate electrical signals in order to generate full-rate optical duobinary signals. Spec. 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method of generating an optical duobinary signal, comprising: applying a first data stream having a first bit rate to drive a first arm of an optical modulator; misaligning a second data stream with respect to the first data stream by one half of a bit period corresponding to the first bit rate to produce a misaligned data stream, wherein the second data stream is synchronized with the first data stream and has the first bit rate; and applying said misaligned data stream to drive a second arm of the optical modulator wherein: the optical modulator is adapted to modulate an optical beam based on said applied data streams to generate the optical duobinary signal; and the step of misaligning comprises delaying the second data stream with respect to the first data stream by a delay time greater than a bit-period duration corresponding to the first bit rate. REFERENCES Davies US 5,999,300 Dec. 7, 1999 Mizuhara US 6,522,438 B1 Feb. 18, 2003 Appeal 2011-005701 Application 11/614,325 3 Mino US 2007/0154137 A1 July 5, 2007 Ho US 7,280,767 B1 Oct. 9, 2007 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Ans. 4. Claims 1-6, 9-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Ho and Mizuhara. Ans. 5-10. Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Ho, Mizuhara, and Davies. Ans. 10-12. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Ho, Mizuhara, and Mino. Ans. 12-13. Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Ho and Davies. Ans. 13-14. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Ho, Davies, and Mizuhara. Ans. 14-15. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding claims 1-20 and 24 are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention? Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Ho and Mizuhara teaches or suggests “delaying the second data stream with respect to the first Appeal 2011-005701 Application 11/614,325 4 data stream by a delay time greater than a bit-period duration,” as recited in claim 1? 1 Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Ho and Davies teaches or suggests “a nested optical Mach-Zehnder modulator (MZM),” as recited in claim 21? 2 ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Final Rej. 2; Ans. 4. Claim 1 recites “misaligning a data stream with respect to a first data stream by one half of a bit period” and then also recites “the step of misaligning comprises delaying the second data stream with respect to the first data stream by a delay time greater than a bit- period duration.” Independent claims 9 and 20 and dependent claim 24 contain similar limitations. Claims 2-8 and 10-19 are dependent upon claims 1 and 9. The Examiner finds that the scope of the claims is not clear since the claimed misaligning is by both a period of a half bit and more than one bit. Final Rej. 2; Ans. 16. Appellant argues that the claims are not indefinite. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends that the Specification makes it clear that the term “alignment” means that the transition edges occur at substantially the same time. App. Br. 6. Therefore, misalignment would 1 Appellant makes additional arguments with respect to claims 1-20. App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 3. We will not address the additional arguments as resolution of this issue is dispositive of the Appeal regarding these claims. 2 Appellant makes additional arguments with respect to claims 21-24. App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 4-5. We will not address the additional arguments as resolution of this issue is dispositive of the Appeal regarding these claims. Appeal 2011-005701 Application 11/614,325 5 mean that the transition edges do not occur at substantially the same time and misaligning by a half bit period would mean that the transition edges occur a half bit period apart. As such, Appellant contends that the delaying step, included as an additional step within the misaligning step, requiring a delay of greater than a bit-period, is not indefinite. Rather, the misaligning step restricts possible time shifts to include only time shifts that are equal to or greater than a 1 ½ bit period. Reply Br. 2. That is, the claim’s inclusion of the misaligning step excludes delays that are only one half of a period. We agree with Appellant. Appellant’s Specification reasonably supports a finding that the term “misaligning” requires the transition edges of the two data streams to be shifted from each other by a half-bit period and delayed from each other by more than a bit period. Thus, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Claims 1-20 Independent claim 1 recites “delaying the second data stream with respect to the first data stream by a delay time greater than a bit-period duration.” Independent claims 9 and 20 recite similar limitations. Claims 2- 8 and 10-19 depend from independent claims 9 and 20, respectively. The Examiner finds that Ho discloses a method of generating an optical duobinary signal the includes every limitation of independent claim 1 except for misaligning by delaying the second data stream with respect to the first data stream by a delay time greater than a bit-period corresponding to the first rate. Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds that Mizuhara teaches delaying the signals on one modulator arm of a duobinary transmitter Appeal 2011-005701 Application 11/614,325 6 relative to another arm by 180 degrees and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have used any 180 degree delay period. Ans. 5-6. Appellant argues that the claim specifically calls for a delay of greater than one bit period and that there is nothing in the references or in the Examiner’s Final Rejection that explains why a teaching of a 180 degree delay in Mizuhara would have made obvious a delay of greater than one bit period. App. Br. 7. Appellant makes additional arguments as to why it would not have been obvious to combine Mizuhara with Ho. App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 3. In response, the Examiner mainly focuses on Appellant’s additional arguments and addresses Appellant’s initial argument by finding that the concept taught by the reference is a “relative delay between two streams specified in degrees.” Ans. 17. We disagree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning. The portion of Mizuhara cited by the Examiner does not disclose a “relative” delay, but rather that the phase-shift is “180 degrees relative to the clock signal.” See Mizuhara, col. 4, ll. 26-27. Thus, the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence that either Ho or Mizuhara explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have used anything more than a 180 degree delay, as taught by Mizuhara. As such, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1- 20. Claims 21-24 Independent claim 21 recites “a nested optical Mach-Zehnder modulator (MZM.)” Claims 22-24 depend from claim 21. The Examiner finds that using the MZM arrangement in Davies for the modulation Appeal 2011-005701 Application 11/614,325 7 described in Ho creates a nested MZM, as required by the claims. Ans. 13- 14 and 19. We disagree. Appellant describes a “nested MZM” as a configuration in which an upper arm, comprising a data signal and its inverse, incorporates one MZM and a lower arm, also comprising a data signal and its inverse, incorporates another MZM. See Spec. 8:1-6. Appellant argues that neither of these references, either alone or in combination, teaches a nested MZM or the ability to create a nested configuration. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellant. In fact, neither of the cited references even teaches the use of multiple MZMs, much less nested MZMs. Therefore, the rejection does not provide a sufficient explanation as to how Davies is combined with Ho in order to create the claimed nested MZM or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined multiple MZMs with Ho. As such, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-24. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding claims 1-20 and 24 are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention. The Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ho and Mizuhara teaches or suggests “delaying the second data stream with respect to the first data stream by a delay time greater than a bit-period duration,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ho and Davies teaches or suggests “a nested optical Mach-Zehnder modulator (MZM),” as recited in claim 21. Appeal 2011-005701 Application 11/614,325 8 SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation