The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2021

2020000164 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 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.
13/954,557 07/30/2013 Eric Y. Chan 13-0870-US-NP 1022
48058 7590 07/27/2021
GATES & COOPER LLP - Boeing
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6060 CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 830
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
EXAMINER
JORDAN, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2021 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-us@gates-cooper.com
gates-cooper@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC Y. CHAN, DENNIS G. KOSHINZ,
TUONG KIEN TRUONG, HENRY B. PANG, WILLIAM E. LAWRENCE,
CLETE MARK BOLDRIN, and ANGELA W. LI
Appeal 2020-000164
Application 13/954,557
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 17–25, and 27. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing
Company. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Our decision addresses the positions raised in the Examiner’s Final Office
Action (Final Act.), dated July 12, 2018; Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Appeal 2020-000164
Application 13/954,557

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an optical network architecture comprised
of optical communications buses that allow electronic devices to
communicate. Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) ¶¶ 2–4. Because
communications buses comprising optical fibers save weight compared to
those comprising metal wires, they are particularly useful in aircraft. Id. at
¶ 3.
As shown in Figure 8 below, an optical network 800 comprises a pair
of first and second mixing rods 812 and 813 that respectively transmit and
receive optical signals for optical-electrical media converters 811-1 through
811-N. Spec. ¶ 47. Likewise, a pair of third and fourth mixing rods 822 and
823 respectively transmit and receive optical signals for optical-electrical
media converters 821-1 through 821-N. Spec. ¶ 48.

Br.”), dated December 12, 2018; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated August
6, 2019; and Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), dated October 7, 2019.
Appeal 2020-000164
Application 13/954,557

3

Figure 8 of the present application depicts a schematic of an optical
network that includes two pairs of tapered mixing rods. Spec. ¶¶ 22, 47.
Each mixing rod has a small face for connecting to the other mixing
rods and a large face for connecting to the optical-electrical media
converters. Each pair of mixing rods 812/813 and 822/823 is configured to
transmit or receive optical signals to or from the other pair via optical fibers
832 and 833. Optical fibers 831 and 834 each transmit optical signals
internal to each pair of mixing rods 812/813 and 822/823, respectively.
Spec. ¶ 49. Accordingly, an electrical signal sent by one of the first plurality
Appeal 2020-000164
Application 13/954,557

4
of line replaceable units 810 is converted into an optical signal by one of the
optical-electrical media converters 811 to be received by all of the line
replaceable units of the first and second plurality of line replaceable units
810 and 820. Spec. ¶ 50.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An optical network architecture comprising:
a first pair of tapered mixing rods comprising a first
mixing rod and a second mixing rod, each tapered mixing rod of
the first pair comprising a small face and a large face;
a second pair of tapered mixing rods comprising a third
mixing rod and a fourth mixing rod, each tapered mixing rod of
the second pair comprising a small face and a large face;
a first plurality of plastic optical fibers communicatively
coupled from the first pair of tapered mixing rods to a first
plurality of line replaceable units;
a second plurality of plastic optical fibers
communicatively coupled from the second pair of tapered mixing
rods to a second plurality of line replaceable units;
further optical fiber having a first end affixed to the small
face of one of the first pair of tapered mixing rods and a second
end affixed to the small face of one of the second pair of tapered
mixing rods, and wherein the further optical fiber comprises a
hard clad silica optical fiber;
a first loop back optical fiber directly coupled between the
small face of the first mixing rod and the small face of the second
mixing rod;
a second loop back optical fiber directly coupled between
the small face of the third mixing rod and the small face of the
fourth mixing rod;
wherein the further optical fiber is configured to
communicate a first optical signal from the one of the first pair
of tapered mixing rods directly to the one of the second pair of
tapered mixing rods;
a still further optical fiber having a first end affixed to the
small face of the other of the first pair of tapered mixing rods and
Appeal 2020-000164
Application 13/954,557

5
a second end affixed to the small face of the other one of the
second pair of tapered mixing rods; and
wherein the still further optical fiber is configured to
communicate a second optical signal from the other of the first
pair of tapered mixing rods directly to the other of the second
pair of tapered mixing rods.
Appeal Br. 26, Claim App’x.
REFERENCE(S)
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Milton US 3,936,141 February 3, 1976
Love US 4,072,399 February 7, 1978
Kobayashi US 4,948,218 August 14, 1990
Yuuki US 6,062,742 May 16, 2000
Mrakovich US 6,116,789 September 12, 2000
Friden US 6,697,874 B1 February 24, 2004

REJECTION(S)
The following rejections are on appeal:
1. Claims 1, 2, 21, 22, and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Love in view of Friden and Milton.
2. Claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Love in
view of Friden.
3. Claims 3–5 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Love in view of Friden, Milton, and Mrakovich.
4. Claims 6 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Love in view of Friden, Milton, Mrakovich, and Admitted
Prior Art (“AAPA”).
Appeal 2020-000164
Application 13/954,557

6
5. Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Love in view of Friden, Milton, Mrakovich, AAPA, and Yuuki.
6. Claims 17–20, 23, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Love in view of Friden, Milton, and Kobayashi
OPINION
After reviewing carefully each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports
sustaining the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons expressed
in the Final Action and Answer. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Prior Art Overview
Figure 1 of Love, shown below, is a schematic diagram of a loop data
bus having a central processing unit (“CPU”) 10 and a plurality of stations
11 through 15 that are interconnected by optical transmission lines 16 (i.e.,
by way of an optical loop transmission line). Love 2:30–43; Fig. 1. The
stations and the CPU interface with the loop data bus through couplers 17–
22. Id. Optical signals travel in one direction as indicated by arrows 32. Id.

Figure 1 of Love depicts a schematic illustration in block diagram
form of a loop data bus. Love 2:20–21, 30–31.
As shown in Figure 2, below, Love discloses an example coupler 35
comprising a pair of tapered mixer rods 48 and 56 where each tapered mixer
Appeal 2020-000164
Application 13/954,557

7
rod has a large endface on one end and a small endface on an opposite end.
Love 3:62–4:11; Fig. 2. The large endface of the first tapered mixer rod 48
is connected to a receiver 41, and the large endface of the second tapered
mixer rod 56 is connected to a transmitter 42. Id. Waveguide bundles 53
and 54 are attached to the small endfaces of the tapered mixer rods 48 and
56, respectively. Id. Bundle 53 extracts a portion of an optical signal from
the network via optical transmission line 37 shown in Figure 1 into the first
tapered mixer rod 48, and bundle 54 introduces an optical signal from the
second tapered mixer rod 56 into the network via optical transmission like
38. Id.

Figure 2 of Love depicts a cross-sectional view of a preferred
embodiment of a coupler, such as one of couplers 17 through 22 depicted in
Figure 1. Love 2:23–24, 43–45.
Non-tapered mixer rod 46 functions to distribute the optical signals
propagating in fiber bundles 52 and 54 in a uniform manner over the
individual waveguides of the loop transmission line 38. Id at 4:5–11.
Love further teaches that each station in an optical communication
network can be “hardwired” to every other station, but “when many stations
must be interconnected, the excessive amount of optical signal transmission
Appeal 2020-000164
Application 13/954,557

8
line required causes this method to be undesirable due to the cost of the
transmission line and the space consumed thereby.” Love 1:39–44.
Milton relates to an improvement to a T-coupler for coupling
information from and into an optical multimode fiber bundle transmission
line. Milton 1:19–25. The improvement allows additional information to be
added or removed from said optical transmission line. Id. at 1:14–18. As
shown in the figure below, connectors 31 and 32 are connected by the fiber
bundle 33, which conducts optical transmission from one connector to the
other depending upon which connector the transmission is directed. Id. at
2:57–52.

Appellant’s arguments are primarily directed to the teachings of Love
or Love in combination with Milton, and all claims, though separately
presented, stand or fall with the arguments presented for claim 1. See
generally Appeal Br. Accordingly, we address only these references with
respect to the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant contends that Love fails to disclose “wherein the further
optical fiber is configured to communicate a first optical signal from the one
of the first pair of tapered mixing rods directly to the one of the second pair
of tapered mixing rods,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 17. Specifically,
Appeal 2020-000164
Application 13/954,557

9
Appellant argues that the claims require “a fiber directly connected between
Love’s tapered rod 56 and another tapered mixing rod [i.e., an adjacent
tapered mixing rod 51].” Appeal Br. 19. According to Appellant,
intervening devices such as the non-tapered mixer rods 45, 46 and the fiber
bundles 37 and 38 prevent direct communication between the fiber
emanating from the tapered rod 56 to the tapered rod 48 of another station.
Id. at 18. We are not persuaded that Appellant has shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
First, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s broad
interpretation of the phrase “the further optical fiber is configured to
communicate a first optical signal from the one of the first pair of tapered
mixing rods directly to the one of the second pair of tapered mixing rods.”
The Examiner has interpreted the phrase such that the adverb “directly”
modifies “the communication” of an optical signal and such communication
need not be accomplished by a single optical “fiber,” as asserted by
Appellant. The Examiner supports this interpretation by reference to
embodiments depicted in Figures 10A to 11B, which are described as
including repeaters and attenuators in the optical connection between the
two mixing rods, yet the fibers are configured for direct communication.
Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 6.
We find the Examiner’s broad interpretation reasonable in light of the
entire scope of the Specification, which includes no limiting language
associated with the phrase recited in the claim, yet includes embodiment
with direct optical communication between mixing rods via fibers
configured with additional optical transmission components, as well as
Appeal 2020-000164
Application 13/954,557

10
embodiments with direct optical communication via only what appears a
single fiber.
Moreover, the Examiner expressly relies on the teaching in Love that
states that each station alternatively could have been connected to every
other station, as a known alternative to the loop arrangement, as evidence of
a teaching of a “direct” hard-fiber connection between each station, as no
mixing would be necessary, even under the Appellant’s more narrow
construction:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
substitute hard-wiring/hard-fibering between at least two stations
along the lines of Love, above, in a system according to Love as
set forth above in order to provide [an] equivalent signal route
and/or signal supply.
Final Act. 6–7; see Love 1:39–44 (“Each station can be ‘hard wired’ to
every other station . . . .”).
To the Examiner’s alternative position, Appellant argues that Love
disparages the teaching of a hardwired configuration by stating that an
excessive amount of optical transmission line increases the cost and space
required. Appeal Br. 19–21. Appellant further argues that the loop structure
of Figure 1 of Love is meant to be implemented over the hardwired version
because it reduces excess optical transmission line. Id.
We agree with Examiner that the skilled artisan would have
understood Love’s discussion of hardwiring as being an alternative
arrangement. Specifically, Love discloses the problems of excessive optical
transmission line caused by hardwiring are faced only when “many stations
must be interconnected.” Love 1:39–44. We agree with the Examiner that
the skilled artisan would appreciate where the plurality of stations connected
Appeal 2020-000164
Application 13/954,557

11
by the optical transmission line 16 is small in number, the cost and space
would not be the skilled artisan’s priority, as there would not be an excessive
amount of optical transmission. Final Act. 7 (“When only two (2) stations
are present, the mixer rods 45, 46 are superfluous. When more stations are
present, hard-fibering remains available per Love. Further, despite any other
structures related to signal transmission in Love, no mixing of the optical
signals would occur with the hard-fibering configuration.”).3
Accordingly, we disagree with Appellant that Love teaches away from
hardwiring the stations by disparaging direct connections. Indeed, “[a]
teaching that a process would be inferior or less desirable is not a teaching
away unless the use would render the process ‘inoperable.’” Ex parte
Nakagawa, No. 2017-008721, 2019 WL 2318886, at *5 (PTAB May 23,
2019). See also In re ICON Health and Fitness Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1381
(Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Nonetheless, “obviousness must be determined in light of all the facts, and
. . . a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and
disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to
combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (emphasis added); see also Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202
F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit

3 Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s reasoning would thwart the
purpose of Love’s redundancy offered by the loop system, noting that should
“station 4 [in Figure 1 of Love] experience a failure . . . a hardwired
connection between station 4 and station N would not permit communication
between all stations” (see Reply Br. 5) is also not persuasive in light of the
Examiner’s rejection, which focuses on a small number of stations each
being directly hard-fibered to all other stations, ensuring communication
even with one station failure.
Appeal 2020-000164
Application 13/954,557

12
comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use
as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of
another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed
against one another.”).
The disadvantage of hardwiring disclosed in Love (space and costs)
depends primarily on how many stations being interconnected, when, as
discussed, many stations are not required to practice the invention. Further,
the Examiner position that additional benefits may be gained (see Ans. 8
(noting the advantages of “network speed, low latency or redundancy of
optical pathway”)) is supported by Love’s teaching of hardwiring as an
alternative option and that “a variety of interconnection schemes may be
utilized.” Love 1:36–44. A reference stands for all of its specific teachings,
as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have
reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is well settled that a prior art reference is
relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.”); Merck &
Co v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[A]ll
disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be
considered.” (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976))).
Appellant further argues that hardwiring the couplers 35 would
“require substantial modifications . . . to produce another routing path for the
new fiber and other significant modifications, or the use of wholly different
couplers in different parts of the system.” Appeal Br. 22. We are not
persuaded because Appellant has not shown that hardwiring directly each
station to every other station, as taught by Love, is outside of the skill of the
ordinary artisan in view of the teachings and connections taught by Love.
Appeal 2020-000164
Application 13/954,557

13
“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Further, Appellant contends that a skilled artisan would not have
modified the stations in Love with the loopback feature disclosed in Milton
to confirm transmission of a signal. Appeal Br. 23. Rather, Appellant
argues that a skilled artisan would have used a “prior art method of asking
for an acknowledgement” or what Appellant asserts is a teaching in Love of
“simply looking for the signal it transmitted on the loop network.”4 Appeal
Br. 23.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s arguments recognize the
benefits of a loop back connection and Milton offers an acceptable approach
to the problem of determining whether a signal has been transmitted. Ans.
10. Further, Appellant’s argument do not address the express teaching in
Love, relied upon by the Examiner, of the hard-fibered configuration. In
such arrangement, the option to detect a signal in the loop connection, as
Appellant argues does not exist. Accordingly, we are persuaded that a
skilled artisan would look for a solution to determine whether a signal had
been transmitted in the hard-wired alternative taught by Love, such as the
direct loopback taught by Milton.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–9, 17–25, and 27 are affirmed.

4 We note that Love does not expressly teach looking for a signal in the loop,
as argued, and note that the portion of Love quoted by Appellant (Appeal Br.
23) teaches that “[i]n practice, attenuation is large enough that the data is not
detectable after one circuit of the loop,” suggesting that “looking for the
signal” in the loop by the same station would not work.
Appeal 2020-000164
Application 13/954,557

14
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 21, 22,
25
103 Love, Friden,
Milton
1, 2, 21, 22,
25

27 103 Love, Friden, 27
3–5, 8 103 Love, Friden,
Milton, Mrakovich
3–5, 8
6, 9 103 Love, Friden,
Milton,
Mrakovich, AAPA
6, 9
7 103 Love, Friden,
Milton,
Mrakovich,
AAPA, Yuuki
7
17–20, 23,
24
103 Love, Friden,
Milton, Kobayashi
17–20, 23,
24

Overall
Outcome
1–9, 17–25,
27

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED