SENKO ADVANCED COMPONENTS (HONG KONG) LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 21, 2022

2021004150 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2022)

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. 16/310,826 12/18/2018 Kaifa YANG S01085US01(FA3) 3239 152878 7590 03/21/2022 Senko Advanced Components, Inc. 450 Donald Lynch Blvd Unit D Marlborough, MA 01752 EXAMINER JORDAN, ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2883 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2022 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com patents@senko.com stl.uspatents@stinson.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KAIFA YANG Appeal 2021-004150 Application 16/310,826 Technology Center 2800 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, DONNA M. PRAISS, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-10. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Senko Advanced Components (Hong Kong) Limited and Senko Advanced Components Inc.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-004150 Application 16/310,826 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A parallel optical fiber angled coupling component for parallel coupling of optical signal between an optical fiber array and a laser array, comprising an optical fiber positioning substrate, a cover plate and a plurality of optical fibers; wherein the optical fibers are pressed into a micro-groove array on the optical fiber positioning substrate with the cover plate and fixed with glue; and wherein the optical fibers protrude a certain length out of the optical fiber positioning substrate and cover plate. Claims App. (Appeal Br. 12). REFERENCES The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Peterson US 7,366,380 Bl Apr. 29, 2008 Tan US 2012/0263415 Al Oct. 18, 2012 REJECTIONS Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Peterson. Final Act. 4. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Peterson and Tan. Final Act. 10. OPINION Appellant argues that the obviousness analysis fails to show that the prior art teaches or suggests “optical fibers protrude a certain length out of the optical fiber positioning substrate and cover plate” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. The record before us shows that the Examiner acknowledges Appeal 2021-004150 Application 16/310,826 3 that Peterson Figure 1 does not disclose this particular limitation. Final Act. 4. The Examiner instead finds that Figure 2 of Peterson shows “optical fiber 260 projecting forward to communicate with device 256” and the Examiner concludes that a skilled artisan would have combined these embodiments in Peterson “to provide fiber to device communication along the lines of Peterson, Fig. 2 in a system according to Peterson, Fig. 1 in order to reduce transitions and enable direct communication to/from devices from/to fibers.” Id. at 5. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner additionally acknowledges that Peterson Figure 2 shows optical fiber 260 “extending over integrated circuit chip 255” and that “[t]here is no positioning/supporting substrate below the fiber.” Ans. 13. The Examiner, however, finds that “[o]ne skilled in the art would understand, . . . . that optical fiber 260 is supported, likely by a supporting substrate and cover plate as depicted in Fig. 1.” Id. The Examiner accordingly concludes that “[w]hen coupled with Fig. 1, such protrusion may be maintained” to meet the claim limitation. Id. To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this case, the Examiner acknowledges that Figure 1 of Peterson does not teach or suggest “optical fibers protrude a certain length out of the optical fiber positioning substrate and cover plate” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4. The Examiner acknowledges that Figure 2 of Peterson shows only that optical fiber 260 “extend[s] over integrated circuit 215” and the optical fiber is “likely” supported by a substrate. Ans. 13. The Examiner’s finding that “such protrusion may be maintained,” (id.) at best, shows that the protrusion Appeal 2021-004150 Application 16/310,826 4 of the optical fiber over the integrated circuit may be maintained. The record therefore does not clearly establish that the combined prior art teaches or suggests “optical fibers protrude a certain length out of the optical fiber positioning substrate and cover plate” as recited in claim 1. We accordingly do not sustain the rejection. The rejections of all dependent claims are reversed as well. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-8 103 Peterson 1-8 9, 10 103 Peterson, Tan 9, 10 Overall Outcome 1-10 REVERSED