Ex Parte Scott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2014

11629879 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREW M. SCOTT
and
ANDREW J. TURNER
____________

Appeal 2011-010351
Application 11/629,879
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and
ROMULO H. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

The Appellants1 seek our review of a rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 10,
12-19, and 26-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
We reverse.

1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “QinetiQ Limited.”
Appeal Brief filed February 11, 2011 (“App. Br.”) 1.
Appeal 2011-010351
Application 11/629,879

2
BACKGROUND

The invention relates to a method and apparatus for aligning an
optical fiber with respect to a high power laser beam. Specification
(“Spec.”) 1, ll. 3-5. According to the Appellants, if high power laser light
misses the central core of the optical fiber during coupling and becomes
incident on the cladding of the fiber, catastrophic damage can result. Id. at
1, ll. 9-10. The invention addresses this problem by coupling light with a
lower power to a second end of the fiber such that an optical reference beam
is output from a first end of the fiber and matching at least one beam
parameter of the final optical beam with a corresponding beam parameter of
the optical reference beam. Id. at 2, l. 28 to 3, l. 15.
Representative claims 1, 12, 19, and 28 are reproduced below:
1. A method of coupling a first optical beam into a first
end of an optical fibre, said method comprising the steps of:
(i) coupling light into a second end of the optical fibre
such that an optical reference beam is output from the first end
of the optical fibre; and
(ii) matching at least one beam parameter of the first
optical beam with a corresponding beam parameter of the
optical reference beam.
12. An optical apparatus for coupling a first optical beam into
a first end of an optical fibre, said apparatus comprises:
means for coupling light into the second end of the optical fibre
such that an optical reference beam will be output from the first end
of the optical fibre; and
Appeal 2011-010351
Application 11/629,879

3
beam matching means for matching at least one beam
parameter of the first optical beam with a corresponding beam
parameter of the optical reference beam.
19. An optical apparatus for aligning a first end of an optical
fibre with a first optical beam, said apparatus comprising:
a primary laser source for producing said first optical beam;
and alignment means for aligning the first end of said optical fibre
with the first optical beam, wherein the alignment means comprises at
least one wavefront sensor, wherein said alignment means includes a
secondary laser source for outputting an optical reference beam
optically coupled into a second end of the optical fibre and said
wavefront sensor receives the reference beam when the optical
reference beam is output from the first end of the optical fibre.
28. An apparatus for aligning an optical system, the optical
system comprising: a primary laser source coupling a first optical
beam into a first end of an optical fibre;
a secondary source of radiation for coupling radiation into a
second end of said optical fibre forming an optical reference beam;
and a wavefront sensor for measuring the beam characteristics of both
the first optical beam and the optical reference beam.
App. Br. 20, 22-25 (Claims App’x) (italics added to show disputed claim
limitations).
The Examiner rejected the claims as follows.
I. Claims 1-4, 7, 12,2 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Andrews.3

2 The Examiner omitted claim 12 from the statement of rejection.
Examiner’s Answer entered April 1, 2011 (“Ans.”) 4. The omission,
however, was harmless because claim 12 was specifically discussed in the
Appeal 2011-010351
Application 11/629,879

4
II. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Andrews.
III. Claims 5, 14, 15, 19, 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as
unpatentable over Andrews in view of James.4
IV. Claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Andrews in view of LaBudde.5
V. Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Andrews in view of Boppart.6
VI. Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Andrews in view of Benoit.7
VII. Claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Andrews in view of Nagano.8
Ans. 4-14.

DISCUSSION
The Examiner found that Andrews describes every limitation of claim
1. Ans. 4-6. Regarding the limitation “coupling light into a second end of

body of the rejection. Id.
3 US Patent 5,477,323 issued December 19, 1995.
4 US Patent Application Publication 2003/0053071 A1 published March 20,
2003.
5 US Patent 4,696,062 issued September 22, 1987.
6 US Patent 6,485,413 B1 issued November 26, 2002.
7 US Patent Application Publication 2004/0223715 A1 published November
11, 2004.
8 US Patent Application Publication 2004/0027631 A1 published February
12, 2004.
Appeal 2011-010351
Application 11/629,879

5
the optical fibre such that an optical reference beam is output from the first
end” (emphasis added) recited in claim 1, the Examiner relied on Andrews’
disclosure of directing light from a laser towards interferometer 40, which
the Examiner considers as the “second end,” and permitting reflected beam 1
to emit out of coupler 54, which the Examiner considers as the “first end,”
towards coupler 56. Id. at 4-5 (citing Andrews’s col. 2, ll. 8-10; col. 10, ll.
39-47; Fig. 5 (reproduced and annotated in the Answer as Fig. 5A)).
The Appellants contend, inter alia, that Andrews does not describe
“coupling light into a second end of the optical fibre such that an optical
reference beam is output from the first end,” as required by claim 1. App.
Br. 11-12.
We agree with the Appellants. “‘During … examination, the PTO
must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification.’” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (quoting In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007)) (emphasis added). Nevertheless, our reviewing court has
repeatedly “instructed that any such construction [must] be ‘consistent with
the specification . . . and that claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’”
Id. at 1260.
In the instant case, the term “coupling,” when read in light of the
Specification, would have been understood by one skilled in the relevant art
as directing a light from an external power source into an end of an optical
fiber. Spec. 1, ll. 7-16; 2, l. 28 to 3, l. 23; 13, ll. 7-32; and Fig. 1.
Appeal 2011-010351
Application 11/629,879

6
The light emanating from Andrews’s laser or LED is coupled into the
first end, not the second end. And, neither beam 1 nor beam 2, as indicated
by Examiner in Fig. 5A, is coupled into the “second end” of the optical fiber
in Andrews. Rather, beam 1 is reflected from the second end of the fiber
back towards the first end whereas reflected beam 2 traverses the gap in
interferometer 40 (phase modified) and is reflected back into the “second
end” of the optical fiber. As argued by the Appellants, App. Br. 12,
“Andrews specifically states that the ‘coupler 54 directs the reflected beams
1 and 2 from … interferometer 40 to the coupler 56’ (Column 10, lines 4-
8).”
The other independent claims (claims 12, 19, and 28) include the
same or similar limitations as the claim 1 limitation at issue. Therefore, the
rejections of these claims rest on the same flawed finding identified above
with respect to claim 1.
For these reasons, we cannot uphold any of the Examiner’s rejections.

SUMMARY

Rejections I through VII are reversed.

REVERSED

sld