Ex Parte YIN et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 201814270751 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/270,751 05/06/2014 99643 7590 08/30/2018 Staas & Halsey LLP 1201 New York Avenue, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jinrong YIN 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. 2382.1308 2187 EXAMINER SANDHU, AMRITBIR K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2636 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2018 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): ptomail@s-n-h.com uspatent@huawei.com ggamer@s-n-h.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JINRONG YIN, SULIN YANG, and SHU LI Appeal2017-011803 Application 14/270,751 1 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hawbaker (US 2006/0221865 Al; Oct. 5, 2006) and Stiscia (US 2004/0136712 Al; July 15, 2004). Final Act. 5-8. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, Grossman (US 2010/0239257 Al; Sept. 23, 2010), and Lakkis (US 2007/0168841 Al; July 19, 2007). Final Act. 8-10. 1 The real party in interest is Huawei Technologies Co. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-011803 Application 14/270,751 Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, and Yoshida (US 2009/0208227 Al; Aug. 20, 2009). Final Act. 10-12. Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, Zhang (US 2009/0208204 Al; Aug. 20, 2009), and Lakkis. Final Act. 12-14. Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, and Lao (US 2011/0215870 Al; Sept. 8, 2011). Final Act. 14--16. Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, and Mun (US 9,106,335 B2; Aug. 11, 2015). Final Act. 16. Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Hawbaker and Stiscia. Final Act. 17-18. Claim IO is rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, Grossman, and Lakkis. Final Act. 18-20. Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, Grossman, Lakkis, and Yoshida. Final Act. 20-22. Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, and Bernard (US 2009/0148157 Al; June 11, 2009). Final Act. 22-23. Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Hawbaker and Stiscia. Final Act. 23-24. Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, and Lakkis. Final Act. 24--26. 2 Appeal2017-011803 Application 14/270,751 Claim 16 is rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hawbaker and Stiscia. Final Act. 26-28. Claim 17 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, and Lao. Final Act. 28-30. Claim 18 is rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hawbaker and Stiscia. Final Act. 30-32. We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "a fiber recognition method, an optical line terminal, and a recognition system." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A fiber recognition method, comprising: obtaining identification information of a fiber connected to a port of an optical line terminal, the fiber to be recognized; generating a data frame that comprises the identification information of the fiber to be recognized; and transmitting optical signals that are generated according to the data frame by the fiber to be recognized, wherein the identification information of the fiber to be recognized, which is carried in the data frame, is used to instruct a fiber recognition apparatus to recognize a fiber that transmits the optical signals. PRINCIPLES OF LAW We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). 3 Appeal2017-011803 Application 14/270,751 ANALYSIS THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1 AND 2 OVER HAWBAKER AND STISCIA Contentions The Examiner finds Hawbaker and Stiscia teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 5-7; see also Ans. 2-7. In particular, the Examiner finds Hawbaker teaches all limitations of claim 1, except for optical signals, which the Examiner finds are taught by Stiscia. Final Act. 5-7. The Examiner reasons Thus it would [have been] obvious to combine the transmission of optical signals of Stiscia with Hawbaker to provide a channel for optical communications through an optical fiber connected between the source and destination and the motivation [ would have been] to provide low attenuation loss between the source and destination and thus allowing transmission over long distances. Final Act. 7. Appellants present the following principal arguments: 1. Hawbaker does not teach "obtaining identification information of a fiber connected to a port" as recited in claim 1 because Hawbaker exchanges port identification information. See App. Br. 5-7; see also Reply Br. 1-3. 11. Hawbaker does not teach "generating a data frame that comprises the identification information of the fiber" as recited in claim 1 because Hawbaker communicates port information across the port's discovery channel. See App. Br. 7-9; see also Reply Br. 1-3. 111. Hawbaker does not teach "transmitting [] signals that are generated according to the data frame by the fiber" as recited in claim 1 4 Appeal2017-011803 Application 14/270,751 because Hawbaker communicates port information across the port's discovery channel. See App. Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 1-3. Our Review Our decision turns on the meaning of "identification information of a fiber." Appellants' Specification describes the following: SJ O 1. An optical line terminal obtains identification information of a fiber connected to an optical line terminal and to be recognized. The fiber to be recognized is connected to a port in the 0 LT, and the O LT may also transmit an optical signal that carries data according to the prior art. The identification information obtained by the OLT in SJ O 1 includes any one of or any combination of the following: port information of the optical line terminal connected to the fiber to be recognized, service provider information, a protocol type of an optical line terminal port, transmit optical power of the optical line terminal port, a power budget level of the optical line terminal port, whether the optical line terminal port is an active port or a standby port, whether the optical line terminal port is connected to a remote radio unit, transmit optical power of the remote radio unit if the optical line terminal port is connected to the remote radio unit, a line coding scheme used by the optical line terminal port, and optical node transmitting wavelength information received by the optical line terminal. Spec. ,r,r 91-93 (emphasis added). In accordance with the Specification, we construe "identification information of a fiber" as including port information. See Spec. ,r,r 91-93. Hawbaker discloses the following: As an example, a driving event may be the detection by a network element of a new fiber or cable plugged into one [ ofJ that network 5 Appeal2017-011803 Application 14/270,751 element's ports. Once a successful link connectivity association with the far end network element has been determined, autonomous notifications of this correlated link connectivity association are sent to management elements 301 and/or control elements 201 residing in their respective management 300 and control 200 planes. Hawbaker ,r 26. Hawbaker further discloses the following: For example, with respect to FIG. 2, local network element 101a sends its local port ID in discovery message 124 to remote network element 101 b. Remote network element 101 b updates its "observed remote port" information to the value of local network element lOla's "local port" ID. Remote network element 101b sends a discovery response 134 to local network element 101a that provides remote network element lOlb's "local port" ID information, and also provides the remote network element's 101b "observed remote port" information. Local network element 101a receives the discovery response 134 with remote network element's 101b "observed remote port" information and uses that value to update local network element's 101a "observed local port" information. A Bidirectional Connectivity Validation (BCV) procedure 130 verifies that the transmit fibers and receive fibers are physically connected to the same pair of ports. If so, then the values of the local port's "local port" ID and "observed local port" ID attribute values are in agreement. If not, then a "bidirectional mismatch" event is detected as shown in reference to FIG. 3. Hawbaker ,r,r 41--42. Hawbaker further discloses link correlation procedures and link discovery notification. Hawbaker ,r,r 49--50. Thus, Hawbaker teaches "obtaining identification information of a fiber connected to a port of an optical line terminal, the fiber to be recognized" as recited in claim 1 because Hawbaker's local network element 6 Appeal2017-011803 Application 14/270,751 sends its local port ID (port information which is identification information of a fiber connected to the port) in a discovery message to a remote network element. See Hawbaker ,r,r 26, 41. For this same reason, Hawbaker teaches "generating a data frame that comprises the identification information of the fiber to be recognized" as recited in claim 1 (Hawbaker's discovery message). See Hawbaker ,r,r 26, 41. For this same reason, Hawbaker (and Stiscia disclosing optical signals) additionally teaches transmitting optical signals that are generated according to the data frame by the fiber to be recognized, wherein the identification information of the fiber to be recognized, which is carried in the data frame, is used to instruct a fiber recognition apparatus to recognize a fiber that transmits the optical signals as recited in claim 1. See Hawbaker ,r,r 26, 41. Put another way, Hawbaker, Fig. 2, depicts discovery message 124 containing the local port ID sent from network element 101 a to network element 101 b. Given our construction above, the local port ID is "identification information of a fiber connected to a port." Further, Hawbaker's discovery message 124 containing the local port ID is "a data frame that comprises the identification information." Finally, the discovery message is transmitted and the fiber is recognized. See Hawbaker Fig. 2 (discovery response 134; remote port detected 126, 128). Regarding Stiscia, the Examiner's reason to combine the references is rational on its face and supported by evidence drawn from the record. See Final Act. 7; see also Stiscia Abstract ( discussing optical network termination (ONT) and optical line termination (OLT)). Appellants have not presented any particularized arguments that the Examiner's rationale for 7 Appeal2017-011803 Application 14/270,751 combining Hawbaker and Stiscia is erroneous. See App. Br. 5-10, Reply Br. 1-3. Regarding Appellants' arguments (i), (ii), and (iii), given our claim construction, these arguments do not show any error in the Examiner's findings for the reasons discussed above. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2, which is not separately argued with particularity. THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Appellants' arguments, in essence, argue that the various secondary references do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Hawbaker and Stiscia. See App. Br. 10-17. For reasons discussed above, we do not see any deficiencies in Hawbaker and Stiscia. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 4 as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, Grossman, and Lakkis; the Examiner's rejection of claim 5 as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, and Yoshida; the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, Zhang, and Lakkis; the Examiner's rejection of claim 7 as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, and Lao; the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, and Mun; 8 Appeal2017-011803 Application 14/270,751 the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 as obvious over Hawbaker and Stiscia; the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, Grossman, and Lakkis; the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, Grossman, Lakkis, and Yoshida; the Examiner's rejection of claim 12 as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, and Bernard; the Examiner's rejection of claims 13 and 15 as obvious over Hawbaker and Stiscia; the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, and Lakkis; the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 as obvious over Hawbaker and Stiscia; the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 as obvious over Hawbaker, Stiscia, and Lao; and the Examiner's rejection of claim 18 as obvious over Hawbaker and Stiscia. ORDER The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation