Ex Parte WysockiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201311369364 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013) 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. 11/369,364 03/07/2006 Paul F. Wysocki Wysocki 18 (LUCW:0025) 9720 48671 7590 09/27/2013 FLETCHER YODER (LUCENT) P.O. BOX 692289 HOUSTON, TX 77069 EXAMINER BEDTELYON, JOHN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2874 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2013 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 PAUL F. WYSOCKI ______________ Appeal 2011-005817 Application 11/369,364 Technology Center 2800 _______________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JAMES C. HOUSEL and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting claims 1, 4-6, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 23-291 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1, 4, 14, 15, 23-25 and 27-29 over Starodoumov (US 7,046,432 B2) and Takahashi (US 6,819,828 B2), and claims 5, 6, 17, 19 and 26 over Starodoumov, Takahashi and Onstott (US 4,896,942). We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse the decision of the Primary Examiner. Claim 1, with reference to Specification Figures 2 and 3, illustrates Appellant’s invention of a system and method for monitoring the power output of an optical amplifier system by monitoring a light signal transmitted 1 Claims 10-13 stand withdrawn. Ans. 2; App. Br. 2. Appeal 2011-005817 Application 11/369,364 2 along a signal carrying fiber, and is representative of the claims on appeal: 1. A system comprising: a tapered fiber bundle (22), having a plurality of fibers coupled to an optical amplifier (20), wherein the tapered fiber bundle (22) comprises a signal carrying fiber (32) and a plurality of leg fibers (29a-e, 24a), a selected one of the plurality of leg fibers (24) being configured to absorb a portion of a light signal transmitted along the signal carrying fiber (32); and a monitor (28) coupled to the selected leg fiber (24) of the tapered fiber bundle (22). App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x). Spec. 11:9 to 15:6. OPINION We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding that Starodoumov, common to both grounds of rejection, would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art an embodiment illustrated in Starodoumov’s Figure 5d wherein single mode fiber 24 carries a light signal and one of leg multimode fibers 61 is “configured to absorb a portion of a light signal transmitted along the signal carrying fiber” because multimode fiber 61 “output[s] light,” thus arriving at a system comprising at least, among other things, a tapered fiber bundle that comprises at least “a signal carrying fiber” and “a selected . . . leg fiber[] . . . configured to absorb a portion of a light signal transmitted along the signal carrying fiber” which falls within representative claim 1. App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x) (emphasis supplied). Ans. 4, 10-13; App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3. We find Starodoumov would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art an apparatus comprising “an amplifier fiber having a doped core surrounded by a cladding” wherein “pump” light absorbed in the core energizes light propagated in the core. Starodoumov col.3 ll.27-31. Starodoumov discloses that “[a]n optical pumping arrangement for the App App amp inser that The pum into Staro wou furth coup more proc of si prop in a mult ll.39 eal 2011-0 lication 11 lifier fiber t pump-lig the pump l arrangeme p light from the claddin doumov d ld otherwi er absorpt Starodou ling pump optical fi Starodou ess” where ngle mode agated in t cladding o iple mode -43. 05817 /369,364 includes o ht from a ight propa nt further the clad g for re-p iscloses th se be wast ion by the mov wou -light out bers. Star mov discl in after de fiber 25, s he core of f single m fibers 21, ne or mor source the gates in th “receive[s ding” and ropagation at the arra ed is circu amplifier ld have dis of the clad odoumov c oses that F -coupling hown by t single fib ode fiber 2 as shown 3 e transmis reof into th e cladding ] an unabs re-inserts t therein.” ngement “ lated throu core.” Sta closed in ding of an ol.4 ll.39- igure 5b i , the “sign he dashed er 25 while 5 is de-co by dashed sion fibers e amplifi .” Starod orbed port his “portio Starodoum provides t gh the am rodoumov Figure 5b amplifier 42. llustrates t al light” pr lines, con the “pum upled and lines. Sta . . . config er fiber cla oumov col ion of the n of the p ov col.3 hat pump plifier fibe abstract. an embodi fiber into he “de-cou opagated tinues to b p light” pr propagate rodoumov ured to dding suc .3 ll.31-36 propagate ump-light ll.36-40. light that r for ment for one or pling in the core e opagated d in col.5 h . d App App “pum optic [de-c (28)] singl mod throu whil cladd see c light Staro the c say, “Star eal 2011-0 lication 11 Starodou p-light” o al fibers. Starodou oupler] ar from the e mode fib e fiber 24, gh the tap e the multi ing of the ol.6 ll.51- The Exa ’ (see claim doumov a laim as th the light d odoumov 05817 /369,364 mov discl ut of the c Starodoum mov discl rangemen [de-couple er (24).” shown by er [(27)] o mode fibe cladding- 54. miner subm 1, line 5 s a ‘signal e light that esignated shows (se oses in Fig ladding of ov col.4 l oses that F t (70) whe r] arrange Starodoum dashed lin ut of the c rs (61) are pumped fi its that w , for exam ,’” the Ex is absorbe as ‘pump.’ e Fig. 5d) 4 ures 5d an an amplif l.43-46. igure 5d i re one of t ment (60) ov col.6 l es, “can b ore of the used to de ber [(25)]. hile “App ple) to the aminer “in d by the m ” Ans. 11. two light s embodim ier fiber in llustrates “ he bundled [illustrated l.60-63. T e used to t cladding-p -couple li ” Starodo ellant is eq light show terprets th ultimode The Exam ignals pre ent for co to a fused an alterna tapered f in FIG. 5 he core of ransmit si umped fib ght from t umov col. uating the n in Fig. e ‘a light s fibers (61 iner cont sent in the upling bundle of tive ibers [(27) c] is a single gnal light er (25) he 6 ll.63-67; ‘a signal 5d of ignal’ of ), that is to ends that device, , Appeal 2011-005817 Application 11/369,364 5 the first labeled ‘signal’ and the second labeled ‘pump,’” and “multimode fibers (61) are shown as outputting the pump light” which “first travels through the clad of the cladding-pumped fiber (25), then along the fiber (24; see figure 5d, the fiber 24 is the fiber shown as outputting the ‘signal’ . . . is referenced as single-mode fiber (24)) in the portion of the fiber (24) to the right of the cladding-pumped fiber (25) but to the left of tapered bundle region (27 and 28 taken together).” Ans. 11-12. The Examiner thus “submits the pump light travelling from the clad of the cladding-pumped fiber (25), through the left portion of the fiber (24) and then through the multimode fibers (61) certainly meets” the requirement “a selected . . . leg fiber[] . . . configured to absorb a portion of a light signal transmitted along the signal carrying fiber” in claim 1. Ans. 12 (citing Starodoumov col.6 ll.60-67). According to the Examiner, the claim language does not require the “signal light” “to travel either ‘in’ or ‘in the core’ of the signal carrying fiber, simply that the signal light is transmitted along the signal carrying fiber and is absorbed by” the selected leg fiber. Ans. 12. The Examiner points out that a common dictionary definition of “along” is “‘by the side of something or near something.’” Ans. 12 (citing “Chambers 21st Century Dictionary”). The Examiner argues “[t]he ‘pump’ light signal output by the multimode fibers (61) certainly can be said to have been transmitted by the side or near the signal carrying fiber during its transmission from the cladding-pumped fiber (25) to the multimode fibers (61).” Ans. 12. Appellant submits “Starodoumov teaches that the signal light is passed out of the core of the cladding-pumped wire 25 along the dashed line in FIG. 5D, while the multimode fibers 61 decouple light from the cladding Appeal 2011-005817 Application 11/369,364 6 of the cladding-pumped wire,” and thus, “there is no teaching that any of the light from the core of the cladding-pumped wire (i.e. the light signal transmitted along the signal carrying fiber) is passed to the cladding of the cladding pumped wire (i.e., a leg fiber).” App. Br. 7 (citing Starodoumov col.6 ll.63-67). Thus, Appellant argues that Starodoumov does not read on claim 1, contending that the Examiner’s interpretation of “along” “ignores the meaning of the term ‘along’ a signal carrying fiber set forth in the Specification” of “light traveling along a length of fiber as meaning traveling in the fiber, and not adjacent to the length of the fiber.” App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3 (citing Spec. 3:15-17, 12:20-21). We find Appellant disclosed in the Specification that “in long runs of fiber, amplification preserves a signal that has been attenuated through losses occurring along the length of the fiber,” and “[m]ost of the amplified signal continues along signal path 32 into a filter 34 before existing via the output 36 for use according to the specific application.” Spec. 3:15-17, 12:20-21. On this record, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language “a light signal transmitted along the signal carrying fiber,” consistent with the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, is any “light signal” that is transmitted or propagated along a “signal carrying fiber” that is specifically for that purpose. Spec., e.g., 3:4-19, 7:1-8. We further determine that the claim language “a selected one of the plurality of leg fibers being configured to absorb a portion of a light signal transmitted along the signal carrying fiber” (emphasis supplied) as requiring that it is the “light signal” which is “transmitted along the signal carrying fiber” that is absorbed by a leg fiber. Appeal 2011-005817 Application 11/369,364 7 Thus, as Appellant contends and contrary to the Examiner’s position, the light signal is transmitted “along,” that is, “over the length of,”2 the signal carrying fiber, and not beside or near the signal carrying fiber. Spec. 11:9 to 15:6, Figs. 2, 3. See, e.g., In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Indeed, Appellant’s disclosure in the Specification distinguishes between “light signal” and “pump light” (Spec., e.g., 10:18 to 11:17, Fig. 1) as does Starodoumov in disclosing that single mode fiber 24 transmits or propagates “signal” light and cladding-pumped fiber 25 propagates “pump” light in the embodiment illustrated in Figure 5d, as the Examiner admits. Ans. 11-12. In this respect, we determine that, as Appellant points out, Starodoumov would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art that single mode fiber 24 transmits or propagates “signal” light entirely through the tapered fiber bundle, and that the excess “cladding pump light” propagated in the cladding of cladding-pumped fiber 25 is de-coupled via multimode fibers 61 for the purpose of re-introducing the “cladding pump light” into the cladding of cladding-pumped fiber 25. Thus, we are of the opinion that, as Appellant contends, Starodoumov would not have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art that the “pump” light propagated in the cladding of cladding-pumped fiber 25 “a light signal transmitted along the signal carrying fiber” as specified in claim 1. 2 See, e.g., along, The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language 50 (4th ed.). Appeal 2011-005817 Application 11/369,364 8 The Examiner does not rely on Takahashi or Onstott in these respects. Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of obviousness, we reverse the grounds of rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 23-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Primary Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED tc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation