Ex Parte Smith et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201613167380 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/167,380 81352 RGIPLLC 7590 FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 06/23/2011 Joseph L. Smith 10/03/2016 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. 808735 7888 EXAMINER 1103 Twin Creeks BELLO, AGUSTIN Allen, TX 75013 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2637 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 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): michele.zarinelli@gmail.com patentpatent@gmail.com ipsnarocp@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSEPH L. SMITH and WOLFGANG W. POHLMANN Appeal2015-000334 Application 13/167,3801 Technology Center 2600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20, all the pending claims in the present application. (Appeal Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l). We REVERSE. Invention Appellants' invention relates to the tuning of a signal received from a first network terminal at a second network terminal. For example, such 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal2015-000334 Application 13/167,380 signals may be part of a wavelength division multiplexing system, in which multiple signaling components, such as lasers, transmit at specific predefined wavelengths over an optical network. The (receiving) second network terminal determines a port at the second network terminal to receive the signal, identifies a predetermined port wavelength corresponding with the port, and transmits it to the first network terminal to inform the first network terminal to tune subsequent signals to the predetermined port wavelength for the port. A signal to a heat source to tune the predetermined port wavelength of transmission to a next wavelength from a group of predefined wavelengths is also provided. (Spec. Abstract, ff 2-6, 18.) Illustrative Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative: 1. A method of tuning a transmitted signal received from a first network terminal at a second network terminal, the method comprising: receiving the signal at the second network terminal, the signal operating at a first wavelength; determining a port used to receive the signal at the second network terminal; identifying a predetermined port wavelength used as a basis to shift the first wavelength to the predetermined port wavelength for subsequent signals received; transmitting the predetermined port wavelength information to the first network terminal to inform the first network terminal to tune subsequent signals to a desired wavelength for the port, wherein the predetermined port wavelength is selected from a group of predefined wavelengths; and transmitting a control signal to a heat source to tune the predetermined port wavelength to a next wavelength of the 2 Appeal2015-000334 Application 13/167,380 group of predefined wavelengths, wherein the next wavelength is different from the first wavelength. Rejection Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Effenberger (US 2008/0267627 Al; Oct. 30, 2008). (Final Action 2---6.) ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Effenberger discloses a control signal transmitted to a heat source, to tune from one wavelength to another, as in claim 1? The Examiner finds that Eff enberger discloses all the elements of claim 1, including "transmitting a control signal to a heat source to tune the predetermined port wavelength to a next wavelength of the group of predefined wavelengths, wherein the next wavelength is different from the first wavelength." (Final Action 4, Answer 7-9.) Effenberger discloses a wavelength division multiplexing system in which laser wavelengths of received signals are monitored and drifting laser wavelengths are tuned to a specified wavelength from a predetermined plurality of pass-bands. (Effenberger, Abstract.) Effenberger is used with partially-tunable lasers. (Id. i-f 19.) Fully-tunable lasers may include a number of components to control laser wavelength, such as "frequency and phase lock control circuitry for an oscillation source, dynamic heating components, dynamic cooling components such as Peltier cooling elements, a laser current control component, a laser voltage control component, and noise filtering"; in contrast, partially-tunable lasers include fewer 3 Appeal2015-000334 Application 13/167,380 components, and are thus less expensive, but may have a limited tuning range. (Id. i-fi-125-28.) In the embodiment cited by the Examiner (Final Action 4), "the partially-tunable laser would not employ dynamic cooling and heating components sufficient to maintain the laser wavelength at a predetermined value [and thus] the laser wavelength drifts as the operating temperature changes." (Id. i127.) The Examiner finds the limitation of claim 1 regarding transmitting a control signal to a heat source to tune a wavelength of the signal is disclosed by current controlling the partially-tunable laser of Effenburger. (Final Action 4.) The Examiner finds the heat source to be "the partially-tunable laser itself[,] being that the operating temperature of any laser 'is affected by parameters such as the amount of laser current' as in paragraph [0025] and/or the 'current' itself broadly considered as the source of heat." (Id.; see also Answer 8.) The Examiner finds that laser temperature changes occur in Effenburger even though "no effort is made to control said temperature changes. (Answer 9.) The principal issue in dispute is whether the laser of Effenburger discloses the heat source of the disputed limitation, and the control of current to the laser discloses the limitation's control signal to a heat source to tune a wavelength of a transmitted signal. We find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the Specification precludes the heat source (to which a control signal is transmitted to tune the predetermined port wavelength to a next wavelength) as the origin of the signal being modified (tuned) by that heat source .. (See Spec. i-fi-f 18, 23, 31, each disclosing a heat source external to a signal source used to modify the signal.) Claim terms are not interpreted in a vacuum, devoid of the context 4 Appeal2015-000334 Application 13/167,380 of the claim as a whole. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999). "The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent's description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction," Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa 'per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Although we agree with the Examiner that Effenberger discloses that "lasers ... are themselves heat sources, desired or not," (Answer 8), we do not find that the control signal of the claim reads on the exemplary embodiment cited by the Examiner in the rejection, in which a partially- tunable laser "may control only laser current and/or voltage, without controlling the laser temperature." (Effenberger i-f 26.) Regarding the use of a partially-tunable laser, Effenberger also discloses that "[i]n at least some embodiments, the tuning control signal affects laser current and/or voltage, but does not substantially affect operating temperature variations of a laser." (Id. i-f 42, emphasis added.) In contrast, Effenberger discloses that a fully-tunable laser may include "dynamic heating components" to control temperature (id. i-f 25), among other components specifically described as absent from the partially-tunable laser that is the subject of the embodiments cited by the Examiner in the anticipation rejection. Thus, we agree with the Appellants that "Effenberger discloses modifying a current or voltage to avoid the need to control an operating temperature," (Appeal Br. 14) and that Effenberger's control current is not a control signal to a heat source to tune a wavelength as required by the disputed limitation. Thus, Effenberger does not disclose the disputed limitation. 5 Appeal2015-000334 Application 13/167,380 Therefore, we find Appellants' arguments regarding the disputed limitation to be persuasive. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 8 and 14 containing commensurate limitations. Additionally, we do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's § 102(b) rejections of claims 1-20 as anticipated by Effenberger. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation