Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 1, 2021

2020005964 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2021)

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.
16/118,882 08/31/2018 Peter Winzer 306596-US-NP 7505
47394 7590 12/01/2021
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./NOKIA
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
EXAMINER
WOLDEKIDAN, HIBRET ASNAKE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2021 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PETER WINZER, JUNHO CHO, and ANDREW CHRAPLYVY
____________________

Appeal 2020-005964
Application 16/118,882
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 through 10, and 14 through 16. The Examiner has
indicated claims 3 through 5, 11 through 13, and 17 recite allowable subject
matter. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). According to Appellant, Nokia Solutions and
Networks Oy are the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-005964
Application 16/118,882

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention relates to a method for use in an optical
communication system which includes a receiver for multi-wavelength
channel optical communication, an optical source of spontaneous emission
light and a tunable optical filter connected to receive the light at an input.
The tunable optical filter can have a filter spectrum with spectral passbands
separated by spectral notches. Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A system, comprising:
an optical receiver for multi-wavelength-channel optical
communication;
an optical source of spontaneous emission light and a
tunable optical filter connected to receive the light at an input,
the tunable optical filter having a filter spectrum with spectral
pass bands separated by spectral notches; and
an optical fiber link connecting an output of the optical
filter to the optical receiver for multi-wavelength-channel
optical communication, wherein
the optical receiver is configured to make a measurement
indicative of an optical power level in at least one of the
notches or to make measurements of optical power levels in at
least one of said passbands and at least one of said notches in
response to the optical source transmitting the filtered light to
the optical fiber link.

EXAMINER’S REJECTION2
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 6 through 10, and 14 through 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of

2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 9,
2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 17, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Final
Office Action mailed October 17, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed June 18, 2020 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-005964
Application 16/118,882

3
Fujita (US 6,008,935, Dec. 28, 1999) and Swanson (US 6,580,531 B1,
June 17, 2003). Final Act. 4–10.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, Reply
Brief, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 is in error as the combination of Fujita and Swanson does not teach a
tunable optical filter having a spectral filter spectrum with passbands
separated by spectral notches. Appeal Br. 8–11; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant
argues that Fujita, which the Examiner relies upon to teach this limitation
teaches peaks in optical power and not notches as claimed. Appeal Br. 9–
10. Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s interpretation of the notches as the
peeks is improper and that the term spectral notches is defined as
“wavelength bands with substantially lower intensity light or no light.”
Appeal Br. 9–10 (citing Spec. ¶ 32 as support).
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments stating:
by definition notches are a very narrow region, a mark, a peak,
or indentations. Fujita et al.(US 6,008,935) discusses in Col. 4
lines 62-67, fig. 2, a tunable wavelength filter(30 of fig. 2) that
transmits wavelengths components within a specific
wavelength range. As further discussed in Col. 5 lines 47–54,
shown in fig. 3b, the output of the tunable wavelength filter
having multiple spectral notches or narrow regions created due
to variation in the light power with respect to wavelengths.
Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-005964
Application 16/118,882

4
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 as we disagree with the Examiner’s claim construction.
Proper claim construction requires a broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir.
1990); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir.
2005). The Examiner’s interpretation of the a “spectral notch” as being a
“peak” is not supported by Appellant’s Specification, nor does it make sense
in the context of the claim which is discussing the notch as separating
passbands (bands of frequency’s which are passed and not filtered out).
Further, as argued by Appellant’s, the Specification identifies notches as
being at wavelengths at which light is blocked, not peak power levels as in
Fujita. See Spec. ¶ 32. Thus the Examiner’s rejection is based upon
improper claim construction. Further, the Examiner has not shown, that
either Fujita or Swanson teaches a passband filter with notches (which
block wavelengths), which is required by the proper construction of the
claim. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 or claims 2, 6, and 7 which depend upon claim 1.
Independent claim 8 similarly recites a tunable optical filter having
optical filter with passbands separated by notches and the Examiner makes
similar findings regarding Fujita to reject claim 8. As such, for the same
reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 8, or claims 9, 10, and 14 through
16, which depend upon claim 8.
Appeal 2020-005964
Application 16/118,882

5
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 6 through 10, and
14 through 16.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6–10,
14–16
103(a) Fujita, Swanson 1, 2, 6–10,
14–16
REVERSED