Ex Parte Udd

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2014

12236478 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC UDD
____________

Appeal 2012-003702
Application 12/236,478
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 31-41 and 49-57. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 31 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set
forth below, with text in bold for emphasis:
31. A Bragg sensor system, comprising:
a plurality of single core optical fibers assembled into a fiber sensor
configuration in which the respective fiber cores are aligned substantially
parallel to one another, each fiber core having written thereon one or more
Bragg grating arrays,
wherein at least one of the optical fibers has a distribution of Bragg
gratings in which a density of gratings in a proximal portion of the
Appeal 2012-003702
Application 12/236,478

2
respective fiber is lower than a density of gratings in a distal portion of the
respective fiber.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Green US 2006/0142897 A1 Jun. 29, 2006
Odland et al. US 2010/0106140 A1 Apr. 29, 2010
Bucholtz WO 01/33165 A1 May 10, 2001
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 31, 32, 34 - 41, and 49 - 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bucholtz in view of Green.

2. Claims 33 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bucholtz in view of Odland.

3. Claims 56 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bucholtz in view of Green as applied to claim 31 above,
and further in view of Odland.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in determining that applied art suggests the
claimed subject matter, and in particular, the aspect of claim 31 pertaining to
“wherein at least one of the optical fibers has a distribution of Bragg gratings
in which a density of gratings in a proximal portion of the respective fiber is
lower than a density of gratings in a distal portion of the respective fiber”?
We answer this question in the affirmative and REVERSE, for the
reasons provided by Appellant in their Brief and Reply Brief. We add the
following for emphasis.
Appeal 2012-003702
Application 12/236,478

3
ANALYSIS
Appellant submits that the applied art does not disclose or suggest that
a density of gratings in a proximal portion of a fiber is lower than a density
of gratings in a distal portion of the fiber, for the reasons expressed on pages
4-7 of the Brief and on pages 1-3 of the Reply Brief.
It is the Examiner’s position that implementation of the Bragg grating
system of Bucholtz into the endoscope of Green arrives at Appellant’s
claimed invention. Ans. 5-7, 14-16. However, we agree with Appellants
that the Examiner, in making these findings and response, does not
adequately address the limitation pertaining to the different densities of
gratings at respective locations, as recited in claim 31. As Appellant
explains on page 4 of the Reply Brief:
Needless to say, a mere disclosure that fiber Bragg gratings be
placed at flexure locations clearly does not amount to a teaching
of different densities of gratings at different locations. This is
because Bucholtz’s teaching of placing gratings at flexure
locations says nothing about a density of gratings, much less,
different densities of gratings at different portions of a fiber.
Since Bucholtz simply teaches placing gratings at flexure
locations, the purported combination of Bucholtz with Green
can at most only result in the Bragg gratings of Bucholtz being
placed at different flexure locations in the device of Green, and
does not and cannot result in the above claimed features (i.e.,
that a density of gratings in a proximal portion of a fiber is
lower than a density of gratings in a distal portion of the fiber).
The Examiner states that Figures 11 and 14 of Green explicitly
illustrates that points of bending/flexing are disposed in lower density in a
proximal portion (towards item 182 of Figure 11 of Green) as compared to a
density in a distal portion (towards item 146 of Figure 11 of Green). Ans. 7
and 15-16. However, it is unclear how Green’s Figures 11 and 14 teach that
Appeal 2012-003702
Application 12/236,478

4
points of bending/flexing are disposed in lower density in a proximal portion
as compared to a density in a distal portion, particularly in the context of
density of gratings. We are thus in agreement with Appellant’s position for
the reasons stated in the record.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1. Because the other
applied references in Rejections 2 and 3 do not cure the deficiencies of the
combination of Bucholtz in view of Green, we also reverse Rejections 2 and
3.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
REVERSED

cdc