Ex Parte Vassilieva et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 13, 2012

11088134 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte OLGA I. VASSILIEVA, CECHAN TIAN, and
SUSUMU KINOSHITA
_____________

Appeal 2009-013770
Application 11/088,134
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013770
Application 11/088,134

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 24.
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to an optical network which makes use of a
level one network and several level two networks that are connected to and
add upstream traffic to, the level one network. See Abstract, pages 4, 5, and
Figures 4A and 5 of Appellants’ Specification. Claims 1 and 18 are
representative of the first and second embodiment of the invention and are
reproduced below:
1. An optical network, comprising:
at least one Level 1 network comprising a plurality of
interconnection nodes and operable to communicate optical
signals to and from the interconnection nodes, the optical
signals comprising multiple wavelengths, each wavelength
operable to carry traffic;
one or more Level 2 networks, at least one of the Level 2
networks comprising a plurality of access nodes and operable to
communicate optical signals to and from the access nodes, the
one or more Level 2 networks coupled to the Level 1 network
via at least one interconnection node;
the plurality of access nodes of a particular Level 2
network each operable to add upstream traffic to the associated
Level 2 network at a different sub-wavelength, each
subwavelength comprising a portion of a passband of one of the
wavelengths associated with the Level 1 network; and
one or more of the interconnection nodes each operable
to:
receive upstream traffic from a plurality of access
nodes at a plurality of different sub-wavelengths;
group the upstream traffic in the plurality of
different sub-wavelengths as traffic in a single
wavelength associated with the Level 1 network; and
Appeal 2009-013770
Application 11/088,134

3

forward the upstream traffic from the plurality of
access nodes in the single wavelength on the Level 1
network.

18. A method for providing optical communication,
comprising:
communicating optical signals to and from a plurality of
interconnection nodes coupled to at least one Level 1 network,
the optical signals comprising multiple wavelengths, each
wavelength operable to carry traffic;
communicating optical signals to and from one or more
access nodes coupled to one or more Level 2 networks, the one
or more Level 2 networks coupled to the Level 1 network
via at least one interconnection node;
adding upstream traffic to the associated Level 2 network
from each of a plurality of the access nodes in a particular
wavelength, wherein access nodes associated with the same
Level 2 network use different wavelengths to add upstream
traffic and wherein access nodes associated with different Level
2 networks use the same wavelength to add upstream traffic;
and
at an interconnection node:
receiving upstream traffic from a plurality of access nodes in a
plurality of wavelengths;
converting the upstream traffic in each of the plurality of
wavelengths to an electrical signal;
combining the received upstream traffic;
generating an output optical signal comprising the
combined upstream traffic, the output optical signal having a
wavelength different from the plurality of wavelengths in
which the upstream traffic was received by the interconnection
node; and
forwarding the output optical signal on the Level 1
network.

Appeal 2009-013770
Application 11/088,134

4

REFERENCES
VUSIRIKALA US 2002/0141047 A1 Oct. 3, 2002
FEUER US 7,027,733 B2 Apr. 11, 2006
TAKACHIO US 7,164,861 B2 Jan. 16, 2007
WANG US 7,212,738 B1 May 1, 2007

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3 through 6, 8 through 11, 15
through 18, and 22 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takachio in view Vusirikala. The Examiner’s rejection is
on pages 3 through 6 of the Answer.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 2 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Takachio in view Vusirikala and Feuer. The
Examiner’s rejection is on pages 6 and 7 of the Answer.
The Examiner has rejected claims 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Takachio in view Vusirikala and Wang. The
Examiner’s rejection is on pages 7 through 9 of the Answer.
The Examiner has rejected claims 13, 14, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takachio in view Vusirikala, Wang and
Feuer. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 9 and 10 of the Answer.

1 Throughout this decision we refer to the Answer dated May 28, 2009.
Appeal 2009-013770
Application 11/088,134

5

ISSUES
Independent claims 1 and 6
Appellants argue on pages 11 through 15 of the Brief2 that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 6 is in error. These
arguments present us with the issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Takachio
and Vusirikala teaches access nodes in the level 2 system that
add upstream traffic to the level 2 network at a different sub-
wavelength as claimed?
b) Did the Examiner provide a proper rational reasoning for
combining the teachings of Takachio and Vusirikala?

Independent claims 11 and 18
Appellants argue on pages 15 through 16 of the Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11 and 18 is in error. These
arguments present us with the issue:
c) Did the Examiner error in finding the combination of Takachio
and Vusirikala teach access nodes associated with different
level 2 networks use the same wavelength to add upstream
traffic?

2 Throughout this decision we refer to the Brief dated April 6, 2009 and
Reply Brief dated June 16, 2009.
Appeal 2009-013770
Application 11/088,134

6

ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, and 6
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief and we disagree
with Appellants’ conclusion that: the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Takachio and Vusirikala teaches access nodes in the level 2
system that add upstream traffic to the level 2 network at a different sub-
wavelength as claimed; and that the Examiner failed to provide a rational
reasoning for combining the teachings of Takachio and Vusirikala.
Appellants argue that Vusirikala does not teach or suggest an
interconnect node that receives traffic from a level 2 network and forwards
this to a level 1 network. Brief 12-13. Further, Appellants argue that
Vusirikala does not disclose use of sub-wavelengths that are a portion of a
passband of one wavelength of the level 1 network, but, rather, teaches sub-
bands that are groupings of multiple wavelengths. Brief 13, Reply Brief 2-3.
We are not persuaded by these arguments.
The Examiner, relying upon Figures 1 and 7, finds that Takachio
teaches a level one and level two networks which add upstream traffic to the
level one network. Answer 10-11.3 The Examiner finds that Vusirikala
teaches a network that receives upstream traffic from a plurality of access
nodes, where each node uses a sub-wavelength in a single wavelength.
Answer 12. Based upon these findings the Examiner concludes the skilled

3 We note that Appellants correctly point out, on page 2 of the Reply Brief,
that Figure 7 only shows a level 2 network with a single access node.
However, Takachio nonetheless teaches in Figures 1 and 8 arrangements
with multiple access nodes, thus meeting the claimed level 2 network with
plural access nodes.
Appeal 2009-013770
Application 11/088,134

7

artisan would have combined these teachings such that the upstream traffic
uses sub-wavelengths of one wavelength band. Answer 5, 14 and 15. We
concur, with the Examiner (i.e. the skilled artisan would recognize the
Vusirikala system could be applied to Takachio’s level one network such
that the wavelengths added by the level 2 networks are sub-wavelengths in
the band associated with the level one network). Further, Appellants’
arguments on page 13 of the Brief, about the differences between sub-
wavelengths claimed and sub-bands, constitute a difference without
distinction. We note Appellants’ Figure 4C, which depicts the sub-
wavelengths as wavelengths that fit within the passband (grouped within the
passband) of one frequency is similar to Vusirikala’s Figure 1, which shows
multiple wavelengths grouped within a band. Thus, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Takachio and
Vusirikala teaches access nodes in the level 2 system that add upstream
traffic to the level 2 network at a different sub-wavelength as claimed.
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
Examiner did not provide a rational reasoning for combining the teachings
of Takachio and Vusirikala. We have reviewed the Examiner’s response to
this argument on pages 14 and 15 of the Answer and consider it to be a well-
reasoned rationale. Further, we additionally note that Takachio teaches each
of the ONUs (items 51-53, which equate to elements on the claimed level 2
network) is allocated one wavelength for receiving and one for transmitting.
Thus, the system uses twice as many wavelengths as ONUs. See col. 14, ll.
36-42. Thus, applying Vusirikala’s teaching of transmitting frequencies in a
channel band from a node, which facilitates amplification (see paragraph
0027), merely represents using a known solution to solve a known problem.
Appeal 2009-013770
Application 11/088,134

8

As such, the two issues presented by Appellants’ arguments directed
to the rejection of claims 1 and 6 have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and
6. Further, as Appellants have not presented additional arguments directed
to dependent claims 2 through 5 and 7 through 10, we similarly sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

Independent claims 11 and 18
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, and we agree
with Appellants’ conclusion that: the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Takachio and Vusirikala teaches access nodes associated
with different level 2 networks use the same wavelength to add upstream
traffic as recited in independent claims 11 and 18. The Examiner finds the
nodes of Takachio include structure that can perform this limitation, but
finds that neither of the references teaches or suggests this feature. Further,
the Examiner has not provided any rationale as to why the skilled artisan
would have modified Takachio’s device such that access nodes associated
with different level 2 networks use the same wavelength to add upstream
traffic. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 11, 18, or dependent claims 15 through 17, and 22
through 24, which are similarly rejected based upon the combination of
Takachio and Vusirikala.
The Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 12 through 14 and 19
through 21 similarly rely upon the teachings of Takachio and Vusirikala to
show that the limitations of independent claims 11 and 18 are obvious. The
Examiner has not found that the additional teachings of Wang or Feuer
Appeal 2009-013770
Application 11/088,134

9

remedy the deficiency noted in the rejection of claims 11 and 18.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent
claims 12 through 14 and 19 through 21 for the same reasons as discussed
with respect to claims 11 and 18.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 1 through 10 and we sustain these rejections. Appellants’
arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims
11 through 24, and we do not sustain these rejections.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 24 is
affirmed-in-part.
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-IN-PART

ke