Ex Parte Benda et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 6, 2010

11133520 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Apr. 6, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHN A. BENDA
and ARISTOTLE PARASCO
____________

Appeal 2009-015277
Application 11/133,520
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: April 6, 2010
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ROMULO DELMENDO, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 7-10, and 24-30.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method of optical fiber manufacture comprising the steps of:

A) directing a first laser beam on a first locality of an optical fiber,
the optical fiber having a circumference and having an axis;
Appeal 2009-015277
Application 11/133,520

2

B) directing a second laser beam on a second locality of the optical
fiber circumferentially displaced from the first locality, wherein the second
locality is also displaced from the first locality along the axis of the optical
fiber; and

C) forming a grating on the optical fiber, wherein the first laser beam
forms a first bend and the second laser beam forms a second bend in the
optical fiber to thereby form a part of the grating, the first end neighboring
the second bend along the axis of the optical fiber.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Prast 5,176,731 Jan. 5, 1993
Kim 6,430,342 B1 Aug. 6, 2002
Berthelot 6,535,669 B2 Mar. 18, 2003

The present application is a continuation of U.S. Serial No.
10/039,094, which was before us on appeal (Appeal No. 2005-0783). In a
Decision dated March 21, 2005, the Board affirmed the rejection of similar
claims, directed to a method of making optical fiber, under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over the same Kim reference presently applied by the Examiner.
Appealed claim 1 now recites that a first laser beam forms a first bend and
second laser beam forms a second bend with the first bend neighboring the
second bend along the axis of the optical fiber.
Appealed claims 1, 7-10, and 24-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, taken alone, or in combination
with Berthelot, and, for claims 7 and 24-27, with Prast (Ans. 5).
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
Appeal 2009-015277
Application 11/133,520

3
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons set
forth in the Answer and for those articulated in the prior Board decision with
respect to the rejection over Kim. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
There is no dispute that Kim evidences that it was known in the art to
form a grating on an optical fiber by creating a series of bends along the
length of the fiber by exposure to laser beams or electric arcs. While Kim
prefers the use of a pair of electrodes 120 situated on opposite sides of the
optic fiber to produce an electric arc discharge, Appellants do not contest
that Kim fairly teaches the use of a pair of lasers as a non-preferred heat
source.
Appellants maintain that "as the electrodes 120 [of Kim] are vertically
disposed and not axially displaced, the electrodes 120 are not able to form a
first bend and a neighboring second bend as required by claim 1" (Princ. Br.
4, penultimate para.). However, as correctly pointed out by the Examiner,
Kim expressly teaches the formation of a plurality of stepped microbends
along the length of the fiber (col. 3, ll. 52-54), "by moving the electrodes in
the lengthwise direction of the optical fiber" to produce a fiber grating (col.
5, ll. 49-50). It cannot be gainsaid that the plurality of microbends formed
by the Kim process constitute neighboring bends.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Appellants contend that "there is no
teaching [in Kim] of two laser beams both circumferentially and axially
placed along the optical fiber forming a plurality of bends that form a
Appeal 2009-015277
Application 11/133,520

4
grating" (Princ., Br. 6, penultimate para.). However, claims 29 and 30
contain no recitation that two laser beams are axially displaced along the
optical fiber. Also, as noted above, Kim fairly teaches the use of two laser
beams to form a plurality of bends along the axis of the optical fiber which
form a grating.
Appellants further submit that "Kim does not teach axially displaced
electrodes 120" (Reply Br. 2, 2nd para.). However, the appealed claims do
not recite axially displaced sources of laser light. For instance, claim 1
recites first and second localities that are exposed to laser beams and are
axially displaced from each other, but there is no requirement that the laser
sources be axially displaced. As set forth above, Kim forms an optical fiber
having a plurality of localities that receive radiation axially displaced from
each other. Furthermore, as stated in the prior Board Decision, "one of
ordinary skill in the art would have drawn a reasonable inference from the
Kim disclosure (taken in conjunction with Fig. 2) that a second laser beam,
circumferentially and axially displaced relative to the first beam, would be
required on the other side the fiber (relative to the side exposed in Fig. 1) to
form the 'two-mode' pattern of exposed regions shown in Fig. 2" (Decision
9, penultimate para.).
Concerning the claim 24 requirement of scanning the first and second
laser beams, Appellants have not addressed the Examiner's finding that the
prior Board Decision affirmed the rejection of such a limitation in claim 7.
Furthermore, Kim evidences that it was known in the art to produce a fiber
grating by periodically scanning a laser along the fiber axis (see col. 2, ll.
21-28).
Appeal 2009-015277
Application 11/133,520

5
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
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

cam

CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM MI 48009