Ex Parte Bowler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2018

13314136 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2018)

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.
13/314,136 12/07/2011 David B. Bowler CS38266 7296
21924 7590 02/26/2018
ARRTS2 F.ntp.mrisp.s T ! C
EXAMINER
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
CORS, NATHAN M
HORSHAM, PA 19044 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2018 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):
ARRIS .docketing @ arris.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID B. BOWLER and XINFA MA
Appeal 2017-006817
Application 13/314,136
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—
6,9, 11-16, 19,21-26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 6-9.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention “provide[s] a multiplex conversion module, an EPON
(Ethernet passive optical network) system with a multiplex conversion
module, and systems and methods for EPON multiplex conversion.”
Specification, paragraph 7.
Appellants further disclose:
Appeal 2017-006817
Application 13/314,136
There is a need for an optical regeneration device that
converts from the WDM [Wavelength Division
Multiplexing]/CWDM [Coarse Wavelength Division
Multiplexing]/DWDM [Dense Wavelength Division
Multiplexing] domain to the EPON domain, resides in the node
that connects the hub to the CPE [customer premises equipment],
and provides a cost effective solution that is flexibly deployed.
The advantages provided by the optical regeneration device of
the present invention include enabling coexistence between PON
[Passive Optical Network] signals and existing HFC [hybrid
fiber/coax] services, increasing the optical link budget,
increasing the geographic area that each OLT [Optical Line
Terminal] port can serve, increasing the number of subscribers
who can be served by a single OLT port, and reducing the cost
of the subscriber side optics. The presently disclosed invention
satisfies these demands.
Specification, paragraph 6.
Illustrative Claim
1. A fiber link module (FLM) in a passive optical network that includes at
least one optical line terminal (OLT) and at least one optical network unit
(ONU), the FLM comprising:
an upstream multiplex conversion device (MCD) that receives an
upstream optical signal from said at least one ONU, converts the upstream
optical signal to an upstream electrical signal, and without use of clock
detection and recovery on the upstream electrical signal, transmits a
regenerated upstream optical signal to said at least one OLT,
wherein the upstream MCD includes a burst-mode receiver without
media access control (MAC) information to receive the upstream optical
signal, and further wherein the burst-mode receiver is an AC-coupled pre­
amplifier; and
2
Appeal 2017-006817
Application 13/314,136
a downstream MCD that receives a downstream optical signal from
said at least one OLT, wherein the downstream optical signal is a
wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) signal, converts the downstream
optical signal to a downstream electrical signal, and without use of clock
detection and recovery on the downstream electrical signal, transmits a
regenerated downstream optical signal to said at least one ONU.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 4—6, 11, 14—16, 21, and 24—26 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer (US Patent
Application Publication 2009/0110398 Al; published April 30, 2009) and
Bowler (US Patent 6,420,928 Bl; issued July 16, 2002). Final Action 2—10.
Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer, Bowler, and Boyd (US
Patent Application Publication 2010/0098412 Al; published April 22,
2010). Final Action 10—11.
Claims 9, 19, and 29 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer, Bowler, and Stephenson (US Patent
Application Publication 2002/0027688 Al; published March 7, 2002). Final
Action 11—12.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 8, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed
March 23, 2017), the Final Action (mailed February 1, 2016) and the
Answer (mailed January 23, 2017) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2017-006817
Application 13/314,136
Appellants contend, “Pfeiffer fails to disclose, for example, an FLM
‘wherein the upstream MCD includes a burst-mode receiver without media
access control (MAC) information to receive the upstream optical signal,
and further wherein the burst-mode receiver is an AC-coupled pre­
amplifier,’ as recited in Appellant's independent claims.” The Examiner
finds “wherein the upstream MCD includes a burst-mode receiver to receive
the upstream optical signal (paragraph 0015, the upstream traffic is burst
mode, thus the respective receiver is a burst-mode receiver).” Final Action
2—3. (See Pfeiffer, paragraph 9). The Examiner further finds, “Pfeiffer
elsewhere does expressly describe using WDM and upstream burst mode
(paragraph 0040) and disclose expressly disclose [sic] that the extender does
not need clock detection and recovery and can stay at layer-1 (i.e. [,] no
MAC information) (paragraphs 0041 and 0044).” Final Action 3^4.
Pfeiffer discloses in paragraph 41, “The end-to-end standard GPON
protocol on network Layer-2 is applied for multiple access control of the
burst upstream traffic” and “The MAC protocol regulates the timing of
upstream signal bursts from ONTs [Optical Network Terminal] so that
contention on the feeder fiber and hence at the OLT receiver is avoided.”
Pfeiffer further discloses in paragraph 41, “The electrical signal distribution
and regeneration in the extender device 1 stays within Layer-1 of the
network protocols and is fully transparent so that the PON endpoints do not
recognize the existence of the extender device 1.”
Appellants argue, “At paragraphs [0021]-[0022], Pfeiffer describes its
extender box, and expressly recites features that the extender device
comprises. Amongst the recited features of the extender, it is expressly
stated that the ‘multiple access control is performed via the usual PON
Transmission Convergence TC Layer/MAC.’” Appeal Brief 7. Pfeiffer
4
Appeal 2017-006817
Application 13/314,136
discloses in paragraph 21, “Preferably, the PON extender device has no PON
related intelligence inside (i.e. [,] no switching or other Layer-2 function);
only Layer-1 network functions are performed in the extender.”
Consequently, we do not find Appellants’ arguments regarding paragraphs
21 and 22 of Pfeiffer persuasive because Appellants’ arguments fail to
provide a response topersuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings that
Pfeiffer discloses, in paragraph 41 and 42, an extender that does not need
clock detection and recovery by staying in layer 1 (i.e., no MAC
information). See Final Rejection 3^4. Appellants also contend, “Bowler is
not relied upon to remedy the failure of Pfeiffer. Accordingly, the proposed
combination of Pfeiffer and Bowler fails to disclose or suggest features of
the independent claims.” Appeal Brief 8. We do not find Appellants
arguments persuasive because the arguments fail to address why the
Examiner’s reliance upon Bowler in combination with Pfeiffer wherein
“Bowler discloses an AC-coupled pre-amplifier burst mode receiver (fig. 3
and col. 4 line 66 to col. 5 line 10)” is erroneous. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—4, 6, 9, 11—14, 16, 19,
21—24, 26, and 29 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 8.
Appellants contend the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5,
15 and 25 is erroneous because “Appellant distinctly claims ‘wherein the
upstream MCD includes an enable/disable signal for the laser’” and
“Reading this limitation in light of the specification, the enable/disable
signal 215 (shown in FIG. 2) is distinct from the digital logic voltage signal
that is the input to the upstream transmitter 213. See, e.g., Appellant’s
[0028], [0034].” Reply Brief 3. Appellants argue:
Even assuming, arguendo, that the Examiner is correct in stating
5
Appeal 2017-006817
Application 13/314,136
“Laser diode means that electrical bias is mandatory for lasing
operation. Without electrical bias, a laser diode does not
operate,” those two statements do not support the Examiner’s
conclusion that “The inherent electrical bias for Pfeiffer’s
operating laser qualifies as an ‘enable/disable’ signal because its
presence enables the laser, and removing/minimizing it would
disable the laser.”
Reply Brief 3.
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner in the sense that employing a signal to enable and/or disable a
laser is not patentably distinguishable over the cited art. See Final Rejection
5, 7, and 10. The requirement to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
is only that the Examiner show “the subject matter as a whole would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 406
(quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103) (emphasis added); id. at 418 (“[T]he analysis need
not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner obviousness rejection of claims 5, 15, and 25.1
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—6, 9, 11—16, 19,
21—26, and 29 are affirmed.
1 The Examiner should also consider whether any claims (e.g., claims 5, 15
and 25) encompass non-statutory transitory media such as signals sent over
optical or electronic communication links. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also MPEP § 2106(1) (9th ed., Rev. 11 Mar.
2014) and Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1859 (PTAB 2013)
(precedential opinion).
6
Appeal 2017-006817
Application 13/314,136
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
7