Ex Parte Bulow

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2014

10873359 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HENNING BULOW
____________

Appeal 2011-008531
Application 10/873,359
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008531
Application 10/873,359

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-final
Rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, and 12-18.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. An optical receiver for an optical transmission
network comprising:
an adjustable optical compensator or an adjustable
electrical equalizer for compensating signal distortions of an
optical signal received from a fiber optical link,
the receiver further comprising at least one controller for
determining from a predefined trainings sequence, received as
part of the optical signal, an adjustment signal to adjust the
optical compensator and/or electrical equalizer to the actual
distortion of the received optical signal by comparing said at
least one received trainings pattern and at least one stored
scheduled pattern;
wherein said optical signal is a burst mode optical signal
comprising at least one optical packet being structured
according to an optical packet format used in said optical
transmission network;
wherein said optical packet format comprises:
a synchronization pattern,
a payload section, and
at least one trainings sequence; and

1 Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 3, 7, and 11 have been allowed by the
Examiner (Ans. 2).
Appeal 2011-008531
Application 10/873,359

3
wherein said controller is configured to locate said
trainings sequence within a received optical packet at a
predefined time span from the synchronization pattern and to
determine said adjustment signal from said at least one trainings
sequence received as part of an optical packet, and
wherein the predefined trainings sequence is used for
compensating the signal distortions per the at least one optical packet.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 4, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kimoto (US 5,434,883) and Ovadia (US 7,277,643 B2).
Claims 9 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kimoto, Ovadia, and Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art
(AAPA) (Spec. 2).
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kimoto, Ovadia, and Okanoue (US 6,738,375 B1).
Claims 8, 12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kimoto, Ovadia, and Kozak (US 2002/0187765 A1).
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kimoto, Ovadia, and Jeong (US 7,218,671 B2).
Appellant’s Contentions
1. With respect to claims 1, 4, and 10,
a. Appellant contends that the references do not disclose all the
claim elements because: (a) the term Photonic burst in Ovadia does not
describe an optical packet (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 11-13); (b) the format
of an optical burst payload, as shown in Figure 4A of Ovadia, is not the
same as a format for an optical packet (App Br. 12-13); (c) data transmission
in Ovadia using a time division multiplexed (TDM) format is not the same
Appeal 2011-008531
Application 10/873,359

4
as the claimed transmitting a payload in optical packets (App. Br. 13); and
(d) Kimoto’s packets, even if combined with Ovadia, do not result in
transmission of individual packets (App. Br. 14-15).
b. Appellant further asserts that the proposed combination of
Ovadia and Kimoto is improper because: (a) Ovadia does not recognize
equalization of an optical signal transmitted over optical networks is needed
(App. Br. 17); (b) the references are not from the same field of endeavor
(App. Br. 17-19; Reply Br. 9-10); (c) Kimoto equalizes distortions, which
would not be applicable to Ovadia’s optical burst switching network (App.
Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 13-14); (d) the references have different data rates and
transmission paths (App. Br. 20-21); (e) one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have connected the ground stations of Kimoto to the ingress
switch nodes (App. Br. 21); and (g) Kimoto’s trainings sequences are not
suitable for cable transmission (App. Br. 21-22).
2. Regarding claims 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12-16, Appellant contends the
additional references applied in rejecting these claims do not remedy the
above-mentioned deficiencies of Ovadia and Kimoto (App. Br. 23-24).
3. With respect to claims 17 and 18, Appellant contends that the
proposed combination of Ovadia and Kimoto with Jeong does not result in
the claimed subject matter because the data segments of Jeong do not
correspond to the claimed optical packets (App. Br. 24-26).
Issue on Appeal
Has the Examiner erred in finding Ovadia suggests using an optical
receiver in place of Kimoto’s electrical or radio receiver and optical packets
in place of Kimoto’s packets, as recited in Appellant’s claims?

Appeal 2011-008531
Application 10/873,359

5
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief (see Ans. 12-23). However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
With respect to Appellant’s contention 1a, as explained by the
Examiner (Ans. 14-18), Appellant has not established why the “optical
packets” of the recited “burst mode optical signal” are materially different
from packets that are transmitted over an optical burst switching network,
similar to Ovadia’s network. Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that
Kimoto is relied on for teaching packets corresponding to the manner of
transmitting data over a network, while Ovadia is relied upon for a known
technique involving transmitting packets over optical networks (Ans. 16-17).
Regarding Appellant’s contention 1b, we further agree with the
Examiner’s reasoning that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
encompasses Ovadia’s optical packets in an optical burst switching network
(Ans. 16). In other words, modifying Kimoto with the teaching of Ovadia
related to optical burst switching networks would have been obvious, and
not contrary to the teachings of Kimoto (see Ans. 17). As further explained
by the Examiner (Ans. 19-20), Kimoto describes both radio and cable
communications whereas Ovadia’s description of an optical cable network is
applicable to Kimoto’s cable-based network.
Appeal 2011-008531
Application 10/873,359

6
With respect to Appellant’s contention 3, the Examiner presents
detailed findings and responses (Ans. 22-23). We also agree with these
findings and conclusions that Jeong is relied on for teaching a technique of
storing compensation information before compensating signal distortion for
later retrieval, which would enhance Kimoto’s adaptive equalizer.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the disputed claim limitations, the Examiner has not
erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, and 12-18
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

msc