Ex Parte Wan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2017

14039715 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2017)

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.
14/039,715 09/27/2013 Min Wan HW 83057260US15 2324
74365 7590
Slater Matsil, LLP
17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75252
EXAMINER
CURS, NATHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2017 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):
uspatent@huawei.com
docketing @ slatermatsil. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIN WAN and XIAOFEI ZENG
Appeal 2016-006699
Application 14/039,7151
Technology Center 2600
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JOHN A. EVANS, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 13, and 15, which are all the claims pending
in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Huawei Technologies
Co., LTD. Br. 2.
2 The Examiner has indicated claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon
a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent
form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening
claims. Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2016-006699
Application 14/039,715
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to detecting a rogue optical network
unit (ONU) in a passive optical network system. Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows with the
disputed limitation in italics'.
1. A method for detecting an optical network unit (ONU) in
a passive optical network (PON) system including an optical
line terminal (OLT) and a plurality of ONUs that communicate
with the OLT via a shared optical transmission path, the method
comprising:
detecting an ONU identity code in an open uplink empty
window or an empty timeslot, wherein the ONU identity code is
a specific sequence optical channel code that identifies a single
ONU of the plurality of ONU s included in the PON system
during the open uplink empty window or the empty timeslot;
and
determining that the single ONU corresponding to the
ONU identity code is a rogue ONU according to the ONU
identity code.
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2012/0008939 Al; Jan. 12, 2012) and
Bernard (US 2005/0265719 Al; Dec. 1, 2005). Final Act. 2-7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in consideration of
Appellants’ contentions and the evidence of record. Appellants persuade us
2
Appeal 2016-006699
Application 14/039,715
the Examiner fails to establish the claims are unpatentable over the cited
prior art.
The Examiner finds Yang teaches “detecting an ONU identity code in
an open uplink empty window or an empty timeslot,” as recited in claim 1.
Final Act. 2-3, Ans. 7-8. In particular, the Examiner finds Yang teaches a
point-to-multipoint (P2MP) system that assigns timeslots to P2MP ONUs.
Ans. 8. If a point-to-point (P2P) ONU transmits on the P2MP system, the
system detects it as a rogue ONU. Id. The Examiner finds Yang teaches the
claimed “empty timeslot” because the rogue P2P ONU is transmitting its
identity code over P2MP timeslots it should not be occupying. Id.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Yang does not teach or
suggest “detecting an ONU identity code in an open uplink empty window
or an empty timeslot.” Br. 4-6. Specifically, Appellants argue Yang
teaches detecting a P2P ONU transmitting in timeslots that are assigned to
P2MP ONUs. Br. 5-6 (citing Yang 14). Appellants argue the timeslot
where the P2P ONU identity code is detected along with the P2MP data is
not an “empty timeslot” or “open uplink empty window” because a P2MP
ONU is assigned to transmit in the timeslot. Id.
The Examiner responds that the claimed window and timeslot do not
recite “authorization” functionality and Appellants are improperly reading
this limitation into the claim. Ans. 8. The Examiner further responds that
the claimed “empty” window or timeslot need not actually be empty because
there is an identity code present. Id.
Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. The Specification
defines “open uplink empty window” to mean “a window in which the OLT
does not authorize an uplink bandwidth for any ONU, that is, in this empty
3
Appeal 2016-006699
Application 14/039,715
window, the OLT requires all ONU not to emit light.” Spec. 141. “Empty
timeslot” is defined as “aperture time between two adjacent uplink
authorized bandwidths, and each uplink authorized bandwidth is
corresponding to authorized time of one ONU.” Id. Appellants’
Specification states that:
[I]n the open uplink empty window or the empty
timeslot, an ONU that works properly sends no data, and only a
rogue ONU may send data, and therefore, data received by the
OLT is data that carries an identity code of a rogue ONU, so
that an ONU corresponding to the identity code can be
conveniently parsed out.
Id.
As a matter of claim construction, we apply the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim terms, consistent with the specification, as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). “Above all,
the broadest reasonable interpretation must be reasonable in light of the
claims and specification.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical
Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in
original).
In light of Appellants’ Specification, we agree with Appellants that
the Examiner erred in finding Yang’s timeslots that are assigned to P2MP
ONUs are the “open uplink empty window” and “empty timeslot” because
these timeslots are not empty. These timeslots are assigned to ONUs and
Yang teaches detecting the presence of an unauthorized P2P ONU in these
timeslots, instead of teaching detecting the presence of a rogue ONU in an
otherwise empty timeslot. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejections of independent claims 7, 13,
4
Appeal 2016-006699
Application 14/039,715
and 15, which recite similar limitations, or claims 2 and 10, which depend
therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 7, 10,
13, and 15.
REVERSED
5