Nokia Solutions and Networks OYDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 23, 20212020002541 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/885,385 01/31/2018 Vincent Houtsma 104182-US-NP 1068 46850 7590 08/23/2021 MENDELSOHN DUNLEAVY, P.C. 1500 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD., SUITE 910 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 EXAMINER BELLO, AGUSTIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2637 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2021 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): docketing@mendelip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte VINCENT HOUTSMA and DOUTJE VAN VEEN ____________________ Appeal 2020-002541 Application 15/885,385 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, MARC S. HOFF, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 seeks our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of Claims 1–17, all pending claims. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed August 19, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed February 11, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed December 12, 2019 (“Ans.”); the Final Rejection mailed March 15, 2019 (“Final Act.”), and the Specification filed January 31, 2018 (“Spec.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, a Finnish corporation, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 3 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant has actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant’s could Appeal 2020-002541 Application 15/885,385 2 We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE INVENTION. The claims relate to a passive optical network having an optical-signal monitor configured to monitor carrier-wavelength drifts during optical bursts transmitted between the optical line terminal and optical network units thereof. See Abstract. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, the sole independent claim which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. An apparatus comprising an optical receiver, the optical receiver having an optical burst monitor and being configured to receive data-modulated optical signals from a plurality of optical transmitters operable in optical burst mode; and wherein the optical burst monitor comprises: an optical mixer configured to generate an optical output signal by optically mixing a first portion of an optical burst and a second portion of the optical burst, the second portion being delayed with respect to the first portion; a photodetector configured to convert the optical output signal into a corresponding electrical signal; and a signal processor configured to generate an estimate of carrier-wavelength drift during the optical burst based on a beat frequency of said corresponding electrical signal. have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-002541 Application 15/885,385 3 REJECTIONS4 AT ISSUE 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, and 12–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(l) as anticipated by Effenberger (US 2008/0085118 Al; April 10, 2008). Final Act. 2–6. 2. Claims 3, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as Obvious over Effenberger (US 2008/0085118 Al; April 10, 2008). Final Act. 6–9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We find Appellant’s persuasive with respect to the rejections under §§ 102 and 103. CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 6–9, AND 12–15: ANTICIPATION BY EFFENBERGER. Appellant states: “claims 2, 4, 6-9, and 12-15 are novel over Effenberger, as applied in the final Office Action, at least by their dependence from novel claim 1.” Appeal Br. 6. In view of Appellant’s statement, we decide the appeal of the § 102 rejections on the basis of Claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]he Board is free to select a single claim from each group of claims subject to a common ground of rejection as representative of all claims in that group and to decide the 4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2020-002541 Application 15/885,385 4 appeal of that rejection based solely on the selected representative claim” in the absence of a clear statement asserting separate patentability of the claims.). Claim 1, the sole independent claim, recites, inter alia, “a signal processor configured to generate an estimate of carrier-wavelength drift during the optical burst based on a beat frequency of said corresponding electrical signal.” The Examiner finds Effenberger teaches: a signal processor . . . configured to generate an estimate of carrier-wavelength drift during the optical burst based on a beat frequency of said corresponding electrical signal (e.g. “beat- tone”). Final Act. 3 (citing Effenberger, Fig. 2, numeral 259, 261; ¶ 28). Appellant contends Effenberger converts received optical signals into binary bits wherein if the optical signal is accompanied by an RF-beat tone, the signal is converted into a digital “one,” and wherein the RF-beat tone is absent, the signal is converted into a digital “zero.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant argues optical detection in Effenberger is performed in a manner that negates carrier-wavelength drift: Because this detection method compares the transmitted signal to itself, it negates all of the common mode drift of the ONU transmitter and isolates only the changes in the transmitter that occur at the bit period. The residual drift in a signal bit period is minimal or nonexistent because the bit period is relatively short, e.g. one ns for a one gigabit per second (Gbps) signal. Id. 4–5. Appellant argues: “Effenberger’s circuit 259, 261 appears to be specifically designed and configured to be insensitive to the carrier- wavelength drift by negating it and/or making its manifestations ‘minimal or nonexistent.’” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant further argues: “being insensitive to Appeal 2020-002541 Application 15/885,385 5 the carrier-wavelength drift appears to be incompatible with and/or an opposite of being able to sense the carrier-wavelength drift to generate an estimate thereof as in present claim 1.” Id. The Examiner finds Effenberger paragraph 28, as cited by the Examiner and discussed by Appellant, discloses the processor “negates all of the common mode drift of the ONU transmitter.” Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that Appellant conflates common mode drift with the claimed carrier- wave drift. Ans. 4. The Examiner’s Answer is problematic because it was the Examiner who cited the discussed paragraph as teaching carrier-wavelength drift. Final Act. 3 (citing Effenberger, ¶ 28) (“a signal processor . . . configured to generate an estimate of carrier-wavelength drift”). Moreover, contrary to the Examiner’s finding, the “beat-tone” is not disclosed as being sensitive to a wavelength drift, but is disclosed as being sensitive to the sum and difference of a wavelength: The balanced detector 259 may receive the two optical signals from the two-by-two coupler 257 and produce RF tones using the two signals. In some embodiments, the balanced detector 259 may have two elements, one element to detect the sum of the received signal and the copied signal, and another element to detect the difference between the received signal and the copied signal. If the ONU 106A sent a ‘one’, then there is interference between the received signal and the copied signal, and a RF beat-tone is generated. If a ‘zero’ is sent from the ONU 106A, then there is little or no interference between the received signal and the copied signal, and only a minimal or no RF tone is produced. Appeal 2020-002541 Application 15/885,385 6 Effenberger, ¶ 28. We find no disclosure in the prior art of “a signal processor configured to generate an estimate of carrier-wavelength drift,” as claimed. Appellant contends that Effenberger does not teach an optical burst monitor. Reply Br. 2. Appellant explains Effenberger discloses a “Frequency Division Multiple Access Passive Optical Network” (“FDMA PON”) and contrasts FDMA PONs against Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) PONs and/or Wavelength Division Multiple Access (WDMA) PONs. Id. Appellant argues the person of ordinary skill in the optical- communications arts would understand that the FDMA techniques, disclosed by Effenberger, do not rely upon optical bursts and that Effenberger does not disclose the term “burst.” Id. Appellant discloses The International Telecommunication Union’s Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) selected the Time and Wavelength Division Multiplexing (TWDM) PON concept for use in the Next Generation of PONs (e.g., NG-PON2). In a corresponding TWDM-PON system, at least the uplink transmissions are carried out in a burst mode. However, a relatively large carrier-wavelength drift of an ONU laser operated in a burst mode can disadvantageously cause the corresponding optical signal to drift out of its allotted spectral band, thereby causing, e.g., power loss for the current wavelength channel and severe interference for one or more adjacent wavelength channels. Spec. 2–3. Appellant further discloses: “a disclosed PON system can be configured to operate such that the amounts of wavelength drift satisfy the Maximum Spectral Excursion (MSE) requirement(s) specified in Appeal 2020-002541 Application 15/885,385 7 Recommendation ITU-T G.989.2 (12/2014), which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.”5 Spec. 3. Document G.989 discloses TWDM and WDM multiplexing techniques, but fails to disclose FDMA techniques. See G.989, 8–10. Document G.989 further defines burst mode transmission. See G989. We find that Effenberger discloses FDMA techniques, but not the claimed TWDM and WDM multiplexing techniques. Therefore, we find Effenberger fails to disclose or teach “a signal processor configured to generate an estimate of carrier-wavelength drift during the optical burst based on a beat frequency of said corresponding electrical signal,” as claimed. We, therefore, decline to sustain the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, and 12–15 as being anticipated by Effenberger. CLAIMS 3, 5, 10, 11, 16, AND 17: OBVIOUSNESS OVER EFFENBERGER. Claims 3, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17 depend from independent Claim 1. Because we find we find Effenberger fails to disclose or teach “a signal processor configured to generate an estimate of carrier-wavelength drift during the optical burst based on a beat frequency of said corresponding electrical signal,” as claimed, We decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 3, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17. 5 Hereinafter referred to as “G.989.” Appeal 2020-002541 Application 15/885,385 8 DECISION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 6– 9, 12–15 102 (a)(l) Effenberger 1, 2, 4, 6– 9, 12–15 3, 5, 10, 11, 16, 17 103 Effenberger 3, 5, 10, 11, 16, 17 Overall Outcome 1–17 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation