Ex Parte Bao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2018

13902210 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/902,210 05/24/2013 Jun Bao
22474 7590 07/24/2018
Clements Bernard Walker PLLC
4500 Cameron Valley Parkway
Suite 350
Charlotte, NC 28211
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.
10.2155 3006
EXAMINER
SANDHU, AMRITBIR K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2018 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):
patlaw@worldpatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUN BAO, JOSEPH F. FERMENT III, HUA JIAO, and
JEAN-LUC ARCHAMBAULT
Appeal2017-001702
Application 13/902,210 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, HUNG H. BUI, and AARON W. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-20, which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, Ciena Corporation is the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed March 8, 2016
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed November 9, 2016 ("Reply Br.");
Examiner's Answer mailed September 14, 2016 ("Ans."); Final Office
Action mailed November 4, 2015 ("Final Act."); and original Specification
filed May 24, 2013 ("Spec.").
Appeal2017-001702
Application 13/902,210
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to an "embedded apparatus [ shown in
Figure 3] that may monitor simulated Brillouin scattering (SBS) from a
Raman amplifier in a fiber optics transmission system." Spec. ,r 1.
Appellants' Figure 3 is reproduced below:
360
,...-370
MONITORING
CIRCUIT
350
/330
3208
CONNECTOR
Figure 3 shows monitoring circuit 370 to determine whether one or more
back reflections from fiber optics transmission system indicate [i] a
stimulated Brillouin scattering (SBS) event undesirably caused by the optical
pump source, [ii] a normal condition, or [iii] excessive back reflections that
trigger at least one remedial action. Spec. ,r 20.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter, as reproduced below:
1. An apparatus to monitor pump stability in a fiber
optics transmission system, comprising:
[ 1] an optical pump source configured to transmit a
signal in the fiber optics transmission system;
[2] an optical amplifier configured to receive the signal
and to amplify the signal based thereon; and
[3] a monitoring circuit configured to compare
reflection coefficients associated with one or more back
2
Appeal2017-001702
Application 13/902,210
reflections from the fiber optics transmission system during a
detection window to a threshold to determine whether the one or
more back reflections during the detection window indicate
[i] a stimulated Brillouin scattering (SBS) event
undesirably caused by the optical pump source,
[ii] a normal condition, or
[iii] excessive back reflections that trigger at least
one remedial action.
App. Br. 13 (Claims App'x).
EXAMINER'S REJECTION & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1-7, 11, 12, 14--17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Stummer et al. (US
6,547,453 Bl; issued Apr. 15, 2003) (hereinafter "Stummer") and Watanabe
(US 2005/0099674 Al; published May 12, 2005). Final Act. 2-7, 12-25.
(2) Claim 8 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Stummer, Watanabe, Emori et al. (US
2005/0105165 Al, published May 19, 2005) (hereinafter "Emori"), and
Oron et al. (US 2008/0292312 Al; published Nov. 27, 2008) (hereinafter
"Oron"). Final Act. 8-10.
(3) Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Stummer, Watanabe, and Akasaka et al. (US
6,292,288 Bl; issued Sept. 18, 2001) (hereinafter "Akasaka"). Final Act.
10-11.
(4) Claim 10 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Stummer, Watanabe, and Zavadsky et al. (US
2007 /0242689 Al; published Oct. 18, 2007) (hereinafter "Zavadsky"). Final
Act. 11-12.
3
Appeal2017-001702
Application 13/902,210
ANALYSIS
In support of the obviousness rejection of claim 1, and similarly,
claims 11 and 16, the Examiner finds Stummer discloses Appellants'
claimed "apparatus to monitor pump stability in a fiber optics transmission
system" equipped with all the claimed physical components including:
[ 1] "an optical pump source configured to transmit a
signal in the fiber optics transmission system" (see Stummer's
pumps 730, 735, Fig. 11 );
[2] "an optical amplifier configured to receive the
signal and to amplify the signal based thereon" (see Stummer's
amplifier 710, Fig. 11 ); and
[3] "a monitoring circuit configured to compare
reflection coefficients associated with one or more back
reflections from the fiber optics transmission system during a
detection window to a threshold to determine whether the one or
more back reflections during the detection window indicate" (see
Stummer's detector 770, controller 790, Fig. 11; 10:30-39)
[i] "a stimulated Brillouin scattering (SBS)
event" (see Stummer 1 :46-50),
[ii] "a normal condition," or
[iii] "excessive back reflections that trigger at
least one remedial action" (see Stummer 10:48---65, Fig.
11).
Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Stummer 1 :46-50, 10:30-39, 48---65).
The Examiner acknowledges "Stummer does not explicitly disclose
[that the] SBS event [is] undesirably caused by the optical pump source."
Final Act. 4. However, Stummer teaches (1) indication of a stimulated
Brillouin scattering (SBS) event is based on distributed amplifiers ( e.g.,
Raman or Brillouin amplifiers) used in the fiber optics transmission system
(Stummer 1 :46-52, 3:3-16), and suggests that (2) if these stimulated
amplifiers are used, then a SBS event would have been unnecessarily caused
4
Appeal2017-001702
Application 13/902,210
by the optical pump source (Stummer 3:57---66). Nevertheless, to the extent
necessary, the Examiner relies on Watanabe for expressly teaching "SBS
event can be undesirably caused by the optical pump source" to support the
conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 4 ( citing Watanabe ,r 84 [ sic, ,r 83 ]).
Appellants acknowledge ( 1) "Stummer is commonly assigned" and
"shares FIGS. 1-3 with the present application" and (2) the "combination of
Stummer and Watanabe[] suggest[s] monitoring to detect (ii) a normal
condition, and (iii) excessive back reflections that trigger at least one
remedial action." App. Br. 6-7. For example, Stummer's Figure 3 shows
the same apparatus including monitoring circuit 370 as reproduced below:
310
320
MON!TORING
CIRCUIT
350
370
340
B
320
::-130
CONNECTOR.
Stummer's Figure 3 shows the same monitoring circuit 370 to determine
whether one or more back reflections from fiber optics transmission system.
Stummer 5:44--7: 15.
However, Appellants argue "[n]either Stummer nor Watanabe teaches
or suggests a 'detection window"' as claimed. App. Br. 8-10 (emphasis
omitted). According to Appellants, the claimed "detection window"
[ 1] "provides an ability also to distinguish a stimulated Brillouin
scattering (SBS) event undesirably caused by the optical pump source
5
Appeal2017-001702
Application 13/902,210
from a normal condition and excessive back reflections" (App. Br. 8),
and
[2] "allows Appellant to distinguish between any of (i) a stimulated
Brillouin scattering (SBS) event undesirably caused by the optical
pump source, (ii) a normal condition, or (iii) excessive back reflections
that trigger at least one remedial action" because "[ w ]ithout the
detection window, the monitoring circuit can only distinguish between
(ii) and (iii) as suggested by Stummer at Col. 10, lines 30-39 and FIG.
11" (App. Br. 9).
In addition, Appellants acknowledge Watanabe teaches "pump light is
undesirably reflected because of a stimulated Brillouin scattering" but argue
that "Watanabe merely states a cause of Appellants' SBS event ... not the
techniques used to detect these events or distinguish these events from other
events." App. Br. 10-11 (citing Watanabe ,r 81 [sic, 83]). As such,
Appellants further argue:
"Stummer does not suggest a detection window and using that
detection window to distinguish between any of (i) a stimulated
Brillouin scattering (SBS) event undesirably caused by the
optical pump source, (ii) a normal condition, or (iii) excessive
back reflections that trigger at least one remedial action."
App. Br. 11.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Instead, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments
supported by evidence. Ans. 2-5. As such, we adopt the Examiner's
findings and explanations provided therein. Id. At the outset, we note claim
terms are also given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms
are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
6
Appeal2017-001702
Application 13/902,210
one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The term "detection window" is not defined by Appellants'
Specification; rather, the term "detection window" is described in the
context of determining back reflections associated with a signal transmitted
from a suitable amplifier ( e.g., a Raman amplifier) in a fiber optics
transmission system. For example,
back reflection that occurs in a fiber optics transmission system
may be monitored within a variable detection window to
determine whether the back reflection indicates normal
conditions, an SBS effect that may correlate to health or
performance associated with the fiber optics transmission
system, or a back reflection issue that may require a safety shut
down or other remedial action to prevent damage to the fiber
optics transmission system or hazardous conditions that may
result from pumping energy escaping the fiber optics
transmission system .... For example, the monitoring circuit may
determine a reflection coefficient associated with the back
reflected signal (e.g., a percentage of the transmitted signal that
is reflected) and determine that back reflections during a certain
variable detection window indicate normal conditions if the back
reflected signal always had a reflection coefficient below a
defined threshold during the detection window or had a
maximum reflection coefficient below the threshold during the
detection window. Alternatively, the monitoring circuit may
determine that the back reflections during the detection window
indicate a back reflection issue that may trigger a safety shut
down or maintenance on the fiber optics transmission system if
the back reflected signal always had a reflection coefficient
above the threshold during the detection window or had a
minimum reflection coefficient above the threshold during the
detection window. Otherwise, if the back reflected signal had at
least one reflection coefficient point above the threshold and at
least one reflection coefficient point below the threshold during
the detection window ( or the minimum reflection coefficient was
7
Appeal2017-001702
Application 13/902,210
below the threshold and the maximum reflection coefficient was
above the threshold) during the detection window, the
monitoring circuit may attribute the back reflections during the
detection window to the SBS effect, in which case the monitoring
circuit may record an SBS event that includes a time stamp to
indicate the detection window during which the SBS effect was
observed and increment an SBS counter that tracks how many
SBS events were observed over time.
Spec. ,r 20.
Based on Appellants' Specification, the term "detection window"
simply refers to the period of time in which back reflections associated with
a signal transmitted from a suitable amplifier, including an SBS event, are
observed by Appellants' claimed "monitoring circuit." As such, the term
"detection window" can be broadly but reasonably interpreted as "the time
during which the occurrence of the particular event is detected," for
example, "the time during which the back reflections are detected by the
back reflection detector 770," as correctly recognized by the Examiner.
Ans. 3--4. Appellants do not direct us to evidence to support their
interpretation of "detection window" or to show the Examiner's
interpretation is unreasonable. Moreover, "the fact that [Appellants] can
point to definitions or usages that conform to their interpretation does not
make the PTO' s definition unreasonable when the PTO can point to other
sources that support its interpretation." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis added).
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the claimed "detection window"
does not provide "an ability [] to distinguish a stimulated Brillouin scattering
(SBS) event undesirably caused by the optical pump source from a normal
condition and excessive back reflections." (App. Br. 8). Rather, the ability
8
Appeal2017-001702
Application 13/902,210
to distinguish "a stimulated Brillouin scattering (SBS) event undesirably
caused by the optical pump source [from] a normal condition [ and]
excessive back reflections" is based on an analysis or comparison between
( 1) a "reflection coefficient associated with one or more back reflections
from the fiber optics transmission system" and (2) "a threshold," as recited
in claims 1, 11, and 16.
Lastly, we note Appellants' claim 1 is broadly worded to include
several alternative claim limitations, i.e., any one of [A] "a stimulated
Brillouin scattering (SBS) event undesirably caused by the optical pump
source," [BJ "a normal condition," or [CJ "excessive back reflections that
trigger at least one remedial action." As such, when properly interpreted,
Appellants' claim 1 requires back reflections to indicate only one condition,
for example, a normal condition. Based on such an interpretation,
Appellants' claim 1 is extremely broad and does not distinguish over
Stummer alone.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 and, similarly, claims 11 and 16, as well as their
respective dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20, which Appellants do
not argue separately.
DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv) (2011 ).
9
Appeal2017-001702
Application 13/902,210
AFFIRMED
10