Corning Optical Communications Wireless Ltd

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 14, 2020

2019006510 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2020)

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.
15/049,621 02/22/2016 Ami Hazani HI13-103 9316
21495 7590 10/14/2020
CORNING INCORPORATED
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT, SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, RYAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2849
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/14/2020 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):
usdocket@corning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMI HAZANI, GUY LUPESCU, and OFER NISAN
Appeal 2019-006510
Application 15/049,621
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, 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 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Corning
Optical Communications LLC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Corning Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006510
Application 15/049,621
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a remote unit for use in a distributed
communication system (see, e g., claim 1), a method of managing power in a
remote unit (see, e.g., claim 13), and a distributed communication system
containing the remote unit (see, e.g., claim 20). The remote unit includes an
antenna, a power input, a power over Ethernet integrated circuit (POE IC),
and a control system. Claims 1 and 20. In the distributed communication
system, the remote units are distributed, for instance, in a building to provide
wireless access points. Spec. ¶ 35; Fig. 2A (remote unit (RU) 14).
At the heart of the dispute in this appeal is the control system and a
calculation performed by the control system. Compare Appeal Br. 7–10,
with Ans. 3–7. The control system measures voltage and current associated
with two load resistances and calculates an available power for the remote
unit. Claims 1 and 20. Claim 13 requires a step of “calculating an available
power for the remote unit based on the first current, the first voltage, the
second current, and the second voltage.” Claim 1, reproduced below with
emphasis on the key limitation, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A remote unit for use in a distributed communication
system, comprising:
at least one antenna configured to transmit radio
frequency signals into a coverage area;
a power input configured to receive a power signal from
a power distribution module through a power medium;
a power over Ethernet integrated circuit (POE IC)
configured to measure voltage and current from the power
input; and
a control system configured to:
Appeal 2019-006510
Application 15/049,621
3
open a services switch between the power input
and a real load;
instruct the POE IC to close a first switch coupling
a first load resistance to the power input;
instruct the POE IC to measure a first voltage and
a first current associated with the first load resistance;
instruct the POE IC to open the first switch and
close a second switch coupling a second load resistance
to the power input;
instruct the POE IC to measure a second voltage
and a second current associated with the second load
resistance; and
calculate an available power for the remote unit.
Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Admon US 7,417,443 B2 Aug. 26, 2008
Hunter US 2012/0317426 A1 Dec. 13, 2012

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hunter in view of Admon. Final Act. 5.
Claims 13–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Admon in view of Hunter. Final Act. 12.

Appeal 2019-006510
Application 15/049,621
4
OPINION
Rejection of claims 1–20 over Hunter in view of Admon
To review the rejection of claims 1–20 as obvious over Hunter in view
of Admon, we will focus on the independent apparatus claims (claims 1 and
20) and the independent method claim (claim 13). Claims 1 and 20, and thus
all of the apparatus claims, require a remote unit including a control system
configured to open a services switch, instruct a POE IC to manipulate
switches coupling load resistances to the power input and measure first and
second currents and respective voltages associated with the load resistances,
and “calculate an available power for the remote unit.” See, e.g., claims 1
and 20. The method claims require “calculating an available power for the
remote unit” based on first and second currents, and first and second
voltages. See, e.g., claim 13.
The Examiner finds that Hunter teaches both (1) a control system
configured to calculate an available power for the remote unit and (2) the
method step of calculating an available power for the remote unit based on
measured voltage and current. Final Act. 6–7. Appellant contends Hunter
teaches neither. Appeal Br. 7–9. We agree with Appellant that a
preponderance of the evidence fails to support the Examiner’s findings with
regard to the control system configuration and method step.
First, we consider the meaning of “available power for the remote
unit.” This phrase must be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the
Specification. See In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (“The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the specification
proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the
examiner. And it is not simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with
Appeal 2019-006510
Application 15/049,621
5
the specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how
the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an
interpretation that is ‘consistent with the specification.’” (quoting Morris,
127 F.3d at 1054)).
Looking to the Specification, we determine that “available power for
the remote unit” refers to the power available at the ports of the remote unit
RU. Spec. ¶ 59 (referring to ports 158, 160 shown in Figure 5 that deliver
power to remote unit 102). Appellant calculates this power as Pin=I*Vout –
I2*RLINE. Spec. ¶ 60 (Eq. 3); Fig. 5. In other words, the “available power for
the remote unit” equals the power supplied by power supply 130 minus
power lost by the wires carrying the power to the remote unit. See Spec. ¶ 9
(“Even when the remote power source is initially adequate to supply
sufficient power to the RUs, some of the power is lost on the wires carrying
the power.”). Thus, the “available power for the remote unit” must be taken
to refer to the power available at the ports of the remote unit, a value
different from the power output from the power supply because of the loss of
power over the wires (electrical medium 110) carrying the power to the
remote unit (RU).
Hunter teaches a system and method for delivering power to a remote
unit (PD 106). Hunter ¶¶ 31–32. Power source equipment (PSE 102)
delivers power through Ethernet cables (communication channel 104) to PD
input port 142. Hunter ¶¶ 31–32, 38; Fig 2. In order to meet the requirements
of the claims, Hunter must teach calculating an available power at PD input
port 142.
The Examiner has not adequately established that Hunter calculates an
available power at PD input port 142. As found by the Examiner, Hunter’s
remote unit (PD 106) includes a computing device 164 that determines a
Appeal 2019-006510
Application 15/049,621
6
resistance of communication channel 104. Final Act. 6; Hunter ¶ 48. But
Hunter does not use this resistance value to calculate available power at PD
input port 142. Instead, Hunter uses the calculated resistance to adjust the
power provided to PD 106, i.e., to adjust the power output by the power
source equipment (PSE 102). Hunter ¶ 53.
That Hunter is teaching adjusting the power at PSE 102 becomes clear
when one considers the disclosures related to Hunter’s Figure 4. Hunter’s
Figure 4 provides a flow chart of the adjusting method. Hunter ¶ 63. In this
method, PSE 102 provides power to PD 106 through communication
channel 104. Hunter ¶ 64; Fig. 4: block 302. The power from PSE 102 may
be limited so it does not exceed a maximum power specified by standardized
Power over Ethernet (PoE) protocols. Id. In block 304, the power
management engine 210 of computer 164 receives measurements of the
voltage at PSE output port 128, the voltage at PD input port 142, and current
on communication channel 104. Hunter ¶ 65. In block 306, power
management engine 210 determines the resistance of the communication
channel 104. Hunter ¶ 66. In blocks 308 to 316, the computer makes various
decisions (blocks 308 and 310) and takes actions (blocks 312, 314, 316)
based on a comparison of the resistance to a threshold resistance. Hunter
¶¶ 67–72. Particularly, in block 316, if the comparison indicates that the
resistance of communication channel 104 does not exceed an acceptable
threshold resistance, power management engine 210 “determines the amount
of power that can safely be provided to the PD 106.” Hunter ¶ 72. This is the
amount of power at the power supply before power travels through channel
104, not the amount of power available after the power travels channel 104
and reaches port 142 of the remote unit.
Appeal 2019-006510
Application 15/049,621
7
The Examiner seems to equate Hunter’s determination of “the amount
of power that can safely be provided to the PD 106” with calculating an
available power for the remote unit. Final Act. 6. But the Examiner has not
provided adequate evidence or technical reasoning supporting a finding that
the determination of Hunter is the same as the calculation required by the
claims. Thus, Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–20 over Hunter in view of Admon.

Rejection of claims 13–19 over Admon in view of Hunter
Turning to the rejection of claims 13–19 as obvious over Admon in
view of Hunter, we note that the Examiner finds that Admon’s calculation of
Pact is a calculation of available power for the remote unit. Final Act. 13,
citing col. 17, ll. 50–52; col. 18, ll. 11–20; col. 10, ll. 15–29, and step 1070.
Appellant contends Pact refers to the power available at the PSE, not
the power available for the remote unit. Appeal Br. 9–10. The Examiner
does not respond. Ans. 3–7.
In light of the Examiner’s lack of response and our reading of Admon,
we determine a preponderance of the evidence supports Appellant’s
argument. Admon adds the resistance of the cable (Reffective) to the maximum
power needed by PD 70 (Pclass) to arrive at Pact, i.e., the total power available
from common power supply 620 to PSEs 40 for operating PD 70. Admon
col. 17, l. 49–col. 18, l. 21. This reading of Admon comports with Admon’s
description of the flow chart of Figure 6 as showing the operation of master
controller of Figure 6 as allocating power from power supply 620 to PSEs
40. Id.
The Examiner has provided no evidence or technical reasoning to
counter Appellant’s argument, which is supported by Admon’s disclosure.
Appeal 2019-006510
Application 15/049,621
8
Thus, we determine Appellant has identified a reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 13–19.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is REVERSED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Hunter, Admon 1–20
13–19 103 Admon, Hunter 13–19
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED