Ex Parte Abbott

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

12779409 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 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.
12/779,409 05/13/2010 Stuart M. Abbott TCM260/ST-00026 8460
80635 7590
TCM/GTPP
55 South Commercial Street
Manchester, NH 03101
09/27/2017 EXAMINER
SANDHU, AMRITBIR K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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):
docketing @ gtpp .com
jhobbs@gtpp.com
ipdocket.eatwn@te.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STUART M. ABBOTT
Appeal 2017-005401
Application 12/779,4091
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 4, 7—9, 11—16, 21, and 22.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention is a branching configuration used in a
wavelength division multiplexed (WDM) optical communication system.
The invention includes a branching unit (BU) and a separate predetermined
wavelength filter (PWF) unit. The PWF unit may include filters for
1 The real party in interest is Tyco Electronics Subsea Communications
LLC.
2 Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 17—20 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2017-005401
Application 12/779,409
providing a desired wavelength allocation and may also include optical
connections for coupling the allocated wavelengths between trunk and
branch paths in the WDM system.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A wavelength division multiplexed (WDM) optical system
comprising:
at least one trunk terminal configured to provide a trunk signal on a
trunk path, the trunk signal occupying a plurality of channel wavelengths;
at least one branch terminal configured to provide a branch signal on a
branch path, the branch signal occupying at least one channel wavelength;
and
at least one branching configuration located in an undersea
environment and coupled to the trunk path and the branch path for receiving
the trunk signal and the branch signal and for adding and dropping channel
wavelengths to and from the trunk path, the branching configuration
comprising:
a branching unit for coupling signals to and from the trunk path, the
branching unit comprising at least a first coupler for splitting the trunk signal
from the trunk path to the branch path and at least a second coupler for
combining the branch signal from the branch path with the trunk signal on
the trunk path; and
a predetermined wavelength filter (PWF) unit coupled to the
branching unit through a length of optical cable including a plurality of
optical fibers for selectively filtering signals coupled to and from the trunk
path, the PWF unit being physically separated from the branching unit and
the branch terminal and located at a distance greater than 30 meters from the
branching unit, the PWF unit comprising at least one filter configured to
selectively filter the branch signal or the trunk signal to thereby add channel
wavelengths from the branch terminal to the trunk path or drop channel
wavelengths from the trunk path to the branch terminal,
2
Appeal 2017-005401
Application 12/779,409
wherein the at least one filter comprises at least a first filter
configured to selectively filter the trunk signal to allow at least one of the
plurality of channel wavelengths to pass for dropping from the trunk path to
a drop branch path, at least a second filter to selectively filter the branch
signal to allow the at least one channel wavelength to pass for adding from
an add branch path to the trunk path, and at least a third filter configured to
filter the trunk signal to block at least one channel wavelength corresponding
to the at least one channel wavelength being added.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Sharma US 5,717,795 Feb. 10, 1998
DeGrange US 2002/0105695 A1 Aug. 8, 2002
Orbach US 2002/0191249 A1 Dec. 19, 2002
Toth US 6,665,477 B2 Dec. 16, 2003
Eiselt US 2004/0175187 A1 Sept. 9, 2004
Shinoda US 6,823,138 B2 Nov. 23, 2004
Nagel US 2005/0084207 A1 Apr. 21,2005
Claims 1, 4, 7—9, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Nagel, DeGrange, Shinoda, and Orbach.
Claims 11—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nagel, DeGrange, Shinoda, Orbach, and Eiselt.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nagel, DeGrange, Shinoda, Orbach, and Sharma.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shinoda, Toth, and Orbach.
Throughout this Decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Br.,” filed Aug. 15, 2016) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
Oct. 14, 2016) for their respective details.
3
Appeal 2017-005401
Application 12/779,409
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Nagel, DeGrange, Shinoda, and Orbach
disclose or suggest at least one branching configuration including a
branching unit for coupling signals to and from the trunk path, and a
predetermined wavelength filter unit coupled to the branching unit,
physically separated from the branching unit and located at a distance
greater than 30 meters from the branching unit as recited in claims 1 and 16?
2. Does the combination of Shinoda, Toth, and Orbach disclose or
suggest coupling at least one branching unit and a stubbed branch path,
including coupling a PWF unit and an additional branch path segment to the
stubbed branch path segment at a distance greater than 30 meters from the
branching unit as recited in claim 21?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1,4,7-9,14, and 16
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, a branching configuration
including a branching unit for coupling signals to and from the trunk path,
and a predetermined wavelength filter (PWF) coupled to the branching unit
through a length of optical cable, the PWF being physically separated from
the branching unit (and located at a distance greater than 30 meters from the
branching unit). Independent claim 16 recites substantially identical
limitations.
The Examiner finds that Shinoda discloses the claimed PWF unit (Fig.
10, filters 46 and 47) between wavelength branching unit 40 and terminal
station C, and concludes that it would have been obvious to combine this
4
Appeal 2017-005401
Application 12/779,409
unit with Nagel’s teaching of a branching unit 106 physically separated from
branching terminal 113. Ans. 3; Nagel Fig. 1.
We find that the Examiner’s rejection is in error. We agree with
Appellant that Shinoda does not disclose a branching unit including a
predetermined wavelength filter that is physically separated from the
branching unit, or a branching unit that is located at a distance greater than
30 meters from the branching unit. Br. 19.
Shinoda discloses the structure of branching unit 13 as an element that
includes wavelength branching unit 14 and one or more filters (e.g. filters
15, 16). Shinoda Fig. 4. The subsequent figures of Shinoda show branching
unit configurations under specific circumstances. “Fig. 10 shows the
configuration (No. 1) of each unit when the wavelength X2 is
added/dropped.” Shinoda col. 4:43 44. Thus, just as wavelength branching
unit 14, and filters 15 and 16, are disclosed as being subparts of branching
unit 13, we find that Shinoda discloses wavelength branching unit 40, and
filters 42, 43, 46, and 47, to be subparts of branching unit 13. See Fig. 10.
We agree with Appellant that Fig. 10 of Shinoda simply shows the
inside of a single conventional branching unit. Br. 20. We do not agree
with the Examiner that Shinoda supplies any motivation to separate filters 46
and 47 from branching unit 13 and position them at some physical distance
from the BU, whether or not interposed between branching unit 106 and 113
of Nagel. See Ans. 3.
We find that the combination of Nagel, DeGrange, Shinoda, and
Orbach fails to disclose or suggest all the limitations of independent claims 1
and 16. Asa result, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1, 4, 7—9, 14, and 16.
5
Appeal 2017-005401
Application 12/779,409
Claims 11-13
We agree with Appellant that Eiselt does not remedy the deficiencies
of claim 1, from which claims 11—13 depend. Br. 27. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 11—13 over the
combination of Nagel, DeGrange, Shinoda, Orbach, and Eiselt.
Claim 15
We agree with Appellant that Sharma does not remedy the
deficiencies of claim 1, from which claim 15 depends. Br. 27. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 15 over the
combination of Nagel, DeGrange, Shinoda, Orbach, and Sharma.
Claims 21 and 22
Independent method claim 21 recites limitations substantially
identical to those of independent system claim 1. We find supra, that
Shinoda fails to disclose or suggest coupling a PWF unit separately from the
branching unit, which encompasses a distance of “greater than 30 meters
from the branching unit” as recited in claim 21.
Accordingly, we find that the combination of Shinoda, Toth, and
Orbach fails to disclose or suggest all the limitations of claims 21 and 22.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Nagel, DeGrange, Shinoda, and Orbach does
not disclose or suggest at least one branching configuration including a
branching unit for coupling signals to and from the trunk path, and a
predetermined wavelength filter unit coupled to the branching unit,
6
Appeal 2017-005401
Application 12/779,409
physically separated from the branching unit and located at a distance
greater than 30 meters from the branching unit.
2. The combination of Shinoda, Toth, and Orbach does not disclose or
suggest coupling at least one branching unit and a stubbed branch path,
including coupling a PWF unit and an additional branch path segment to the
stubbed branch path segment at a distance greater than 30 meters from the
branching unit.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 7—9, 11—16, 21, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
7