Ex Parte Dolbec et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2013

10522201 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEAN DOLBEC, MARTIN DUBUC, ROBERT GAUDET,
KIRBY KOSTER, DOUGLAS JAMES MACLEAN,
and ARAVIND KESHAV MISTRY

____________

Appeal 2010-010634
Application 10/522,201
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-0010634
Application 10/522,201

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-11 and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to automatically detecting
fiber cabling errors in an optical network. Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of automatically detecting fiber cabling errors in an
optical network comprising:

detecting current fiber connectivity between optical nodes in the
network;

storing information regarding the current fiber link
connectivity;

detecting any cabling changes; and

determining the impact of the cabling changes on service
through the network including impacts on cross-connects and
lightpaths; and

displaying the impact of the cable changes on the service
including the impacts on cross-connects and lightpaths.

Appeal 2010-0010634
Application 10/522,201

3
REFERENCES and THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Doshi (US 6,130,875; issued Oct. 10, 2000) and
Henderson (US 6,058,103; issued May 2, 2000).

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Doshi and Henderson teaches the limitation of “determining
the impact of the cabling changes on service through the network including
impacts on cross-connects and lightpaths” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis
added).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable meaning in
their ordinary usage as such claim terms would be understood by one skilled
in the art by way of definitions and the written description. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claims, of course, do not stand alone. Rather, they are part of
a ‘fully integrated written instrument’ . . . consisting principally of
a specification that concludes with the claims. For that reason,
claims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they
are a part.’ . . . . [T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to
the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
During ex parte prosecution, claims must be interpreted as broadly as
their terms reasonably allow since Applicants have the power during the
Appeal 2010-0010634
Application 10/522,201

4
administrative process to amend the claims to avoid the prior art. In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim terms are presumed to have their customary and ordinary
meaning unless there is an express intention to impart the novel meaning of
the claim terms. SunRace Roots Enterprise Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336
F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification,
limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Henderson does not teach the limitation of
“determining the impact of the cabling changes on service through the
network including impacts on cross-connects and lightpaths” as recited in
claim 1 (emphasis added) (Br. 3-5). In particular, Appellants argue that
while the Specification does not provide a definition of what constitutes a
lightpath, one skilled in the art would recognize that a lightpath refers to a
point to point connection with an effective guaranteed bandwidth (Br. 4-5).
Appellants also provide a definition of a lightpath which can be realized by
allocating a wavelength on each link on the path between two end nodes (Br.
4). The wavelengths used on the various links may be the same or different
(Br. 4).
We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. While we agree with
Appellants that in the absence of a definition in the Specification we rely on
the meaning of the word from the perspective of one skilled in the art (see
Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054), we find the definition provided by Appellants too
Appeal 2010-0010634
Application 10/522,201

5
narrow. We do not read limitations from the specification into the claims.
See Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Similarly, applying a narrow definition in
interpreting a claimed term would be equivalent to importing limitations
from the definition into the claim. The term “light path” is defined, in
pertinent part, as “1. The path followed by a beam of light when passing
through an optical device or a particular part of one.” Oxford Dictionary of
Biochemistry, at http://www.answers.com/topic/light-path (last visited on
March 21, 2013). Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
definitions that support the interpretation of a “light path” as a link in a
network that utilizes optical fiber (see Ans. 7).
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that even if Appellants’
definition of a light path as an end-to-end (i.e. point to point) path was
afforded, the combination of Doshi and Henderson would still teach
determining the impact of light paths using such a definition (Ans. 7). The
Examiner finds that both Doshi and Henderson teach determining the impact
and recovering from failures of links in a network with optical links (Ans.
7). In particular, Doshi teaches an algorithm that restores an end-to-end path
which clearly requires the analysis of impacts on a path of a failure in one of
the links and determining that there is failure when the power level of a
wavelength falls below a certain threshold (see Ans. 7, in Doshi col. 10, ll.
30-57). Also, Henderson in Figures 5A-5D shows the displays that are
presented to the user that shows the full paths including individual links of a
path (Ans. 7). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the
combination of Doshi and Henderson teaches determining the impacts of
individual failures in an end-to-end path (Ans. 7).
Appeal 2010-0010634
Application 10/522,201

6
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 2-11 and 20.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Doshi and
Henderson teaches the limitation of “determining the impact of the cabling
changes on service through the network including impacts on cross-connects
and lightpaths” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk