Ex Parte Dinu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2012

11210973 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2012)

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.
11/210,973 08/24/2005 Mihaela Dinu Dinu 9-18-76-11-17 5896
46850 7590 07/26/2012
MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1500 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD., SUITE 405
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
EXAMINER
DOBSON, DANIEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MIHAELA DINU, CHRISTOPHE J. DORRER,
CLINTON RANDY GILES, INUK KANG, and
DAN MARK MAROM
____________________

Appeal 2010-003633
Application 11/210,973
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, THU A. DANG, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003633
Application 11/210,973

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a communication system
including a transmitter and receiver having a respective first and second
Optical-Frequency Comb Source (OFCS) for generating a first and second
plurality of uniformly spaced frequency components that are modulated to
produce a respective Quantum-Information (QI) signal and a Local
Oscillator (LO) signal; wherein, the receiver includes a multichannel
homodyne detector adapted to process interference signals produced by
combining the LO signal with the QI signal to ascertain quantum
information carried by the QI signal (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A communication system for transmission of
quantum information, comprising a transmitter coupled to a
receiver via a transmission link, wherein:

the transmitter comprises a first optical source coupled to
a first optical modulator, wherein the first optical modulator is
adapted to modulate light generated by the first optical source
to produce a quantum-information (QI) signal applied to the
transmission link; and

the receiver comprises a second optical source coupled to
a second optical modulator, wherein:
Appeal 2010-003633
Application 11/210,973

3
the second optical modulator is adapted to
modulate light generated by the second optical source to
produce a local-oscillator (LO) signal; and

the LO signal is combined with the QI signal
received via the transmission link to ascertain quantum
information carried by the QI signal.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Olshansky US 4,989, 200 Jan. 29, 1991
Nambu US 6,801,626 B1 Oct. 5, 2004
Roberts US 2004/0208643 A1 Oct. 21, 2004
Da Silva US 2005/0018724 A1 Jan. 27, 2005
Takushima US 6,983,089 B2 Jan. 3, 2006
Vig US 2006/0018475 A1 Jan. 26, 2006
Yap US 7,085,499 B2 Aug. 1, 2006
Epworth US 7,272,327 B2 Sept. 18, 2007

Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Nambu.
Claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nambu in view of Olshansky.
Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nambu in view of Yap.
Claims 6 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nambu in view of Yap and Epworth.
Appeal 2010-003633
Application 11/210,973

4
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nambu in view of Yap, Epworth, and Olshansky.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nambu in view of Yap, Epworth, Olshansky, and Roberts.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nambu in view of Yap and Takushima.
Claim 21stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nambu in view of Yap, Epworth, and Da Silva.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that Nambu teaches:
the receiver comprises a second optical source coupled
to a second optical modulator, wherein:

the second optical modulator is adapted to
modulate light generated by the second optical source to
produce a local-oscillator (LO) signal; and

the LO signal is combined with the QI signal
received via the transmission link to ascertain quantum
information carried by the QI signal.

(claim 1, emphasis added). In particular, the issue turns upon whether
the Nambu patent reference is enabling for disclosing how the LO
signal is combined with the QI signal.
Appeal 2010-003633
Application 11/210,973

5
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Nambu
1. Nambu discloses a quantum communications system and
cryptographic key distribution using light pulses of three macroscopic
quantum states; wherein, at the receiver site, a homodyne detector, including
a phase shifter and a LO, receives the transmitted light pulse sequence,
mixes the LO signal with the transmitted light pulse sequence at the beam
splitter 70, and detects a random bit sequence, along with a superposition of
quantum states (Figs. 3A and 3C; Abstract; col. 1, ll. 16-28 and col. 9, ll. 1-
2).
2. To establish synchronization between the LO signal and the QI
signal sent by the sender site 40, the receiving site 41 includes a control
circuit 73 that receives a phase setting and timing signal supplied from the
sender’s control circuit 61 over a public channel 43 and controls the switch
timing of the phase shifter 72 (Figs. 3A and 3C; col. 9. ll.1-45).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claim 1, 2, 11, 12, 16, and 20
Appellants contend that “Nambu is not enabling” (App. Br. 5)
because “Nambu fails to disclose how the carrier frequency and phase of the
optical signal generated by the optical source are locked to those of the QI
signal” (App. Br. 5-6) and without such disclosure in Nambu “one of
ordinary skill in the art would not be able, without undue experimentation,
to make and use Nambu’s receiver” (App. Br. 5). Appellants argue that “a
Appeal 2010-003633
Application 11/210,973

6
suitable prior-art method of generating at the receiver a LO signal that is
appropriately carrier-frequency and phase locked to the QI signal was not
known at the time of the invention” (App. Br. 9). Appellants argue that the
“basis-set choices [or ‘phase setting’] is what the system of Nambu
communicates via public channel 43” which “is a completely different
thing from the carrier-frequency and phase lock” (App. Br. 8) and that
“Nambu’s ‘phase setting’ refers to such controllable change of the phase of
the already locked LO signal” (id.).
Appellants finally contend that “the Examiner committed an
impermissible procedural error by improperly disregarding Dr. Kang’s
Declaration” which states that “a conventional PLL-based signal-locking
scheme will not work in the context of quantum communications” (App. Br.
6) due to the “Heisenberg uncertainty relationship” (App. Br. 9 and 22).
Appellants assert that the Specification discloses “that the above-explained
fundamental limitations imposed by the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship
can be circumvented by employing two optical-frequency comb sources
(OFCSs), one at the transmitter and the other one at the receiver” (Amend. 6
(dated 08/05/2008) cited on App. Br. 9).
However, the Examiner finds that “Nambu is presumed to be
enabling” and “a person of ordinary skill in the art could have used the
receiver disclosed by Nambu without undue experimentation” (Ans. 14).
The Examiner notes that “[w]hen used as prior art, a patent is afforded a
presumption of operability” (Ans. 20). The Examiner notes further that
“[w]hile the Declaration was not mentioned by name, the substance was
addressed in the final office action” and Appellants “conceded that the LO
must be locked to the received signal for proper homodyne detections” (Ans.
Appeal 2010-003633
Application 11/210,973

7
15). Finally, the Examiner notes “that nowhere in the argued claims is the
limitation that the LO is locked in frequency and phase to the QI signal
expressly recited” (Ans. 17).
Appellants’ argument that “Nambu fails to disclose how the carrier
frequency and phase of the optical signal generated by the optical source ]
are locked to those of the QI signal” (App. Br.5-6) is not commensurate in
scope with the specific language of claim 1. In particular, claim 1 does not
recite such “carrier frequency and phase of the [LO] signal … [is] locked to
those of the QI signal” as Appellants argue (id.).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the
claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “optical source” means,
includes, or presents. Thus, we give “a first optical source” and “a second
optical source” its broadest reasonable interpretation as a source of light, as
consistent with the Specification and as specifically defined in claim 1.
Nambu discloses a quantum communications system and
cryptographic key distribution using light pulses of three macroscopic
quantum states; wherein, at the receiver site, the homodyne detector, mixes
the LO signal with the transmitted light pulse sequence (QI signal) at the
beam splitter and detects a random bit sequence (FF 1). We find that mixing
of the LO signal with the QI signal comprises combining the LO signal with
the QI signal to ascertain quantum information carried by the QI signal such
as the cryptographic key. That is, we find that “the LO signal is combined
with the QI signal received via the transmission link to ascertain quantum
Appeal 2010-003633
Application 11/210,973

8
information carried by the QI signal” reads on Nambu’s mixing of the LO
signal with the QI signal.
Regarding enablement of a patent reference, our reviewing court
found that “a] patent suffices as an anticipatory prior art reference if it
discloses in an enabling manner [the suggested subject matter]”, where it
“relies on standard … techniques that would have been understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of its publication.” Novo Nordisk
Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bio-Technology General Corp., 424 F.3d 1347,
1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that “Nambu is presumed to be enabling” (Ans. 14) and that it is
“afforded a presumption of operability” (Ans. 20).
In particular, since Nambu discloses the synchronization between the
LO signal and the QI signal, where the receiving site includes a control
circuit that receives a phase setting and timing signal supplied from the
sender’s control circuit over a public channel and controls the switch timing
of the phase shifter (FF 2), we find that there is enabling disclosure for
synchronization of the signals.
In addition, although the Appellants argue that the a phase setting and
timing signal supplied from the sender’s control circuit over a public channel
(FF 2) is nothing more that “basis-set choices” which “is a completely
different thing from the carrier-frequency and phase lock” (App. Br. 8),
Appellants through their own admission state that the LO signal is “already
locked” (id.).
Moreover, although Appellants assert that the “fundamental
limitations [on locking of the LO signal with the QI signal] imposed by the
Heisenberg uncertainty relationship can be circumvented by employing two
Appeal 2010-003633
Application 11/210,973

9
optical-frequency comb sources (OFCSs), one at the transmitter and the
other one at the receiver,” where a “suitable OFCS is a mode-locked laser
with a controlled carrier-envelope offset phase, e.g., disclosed by D.J Jones,
et al., in Science, vol. 288, p.635 (2000)” (Amend. 6 dated 08/05/2008 cited
on App. Br. 9), Appellants claim does not recite such OFCSs as light
sources; rather, the claim recites “a first optical source” and “a second
optical source” (claim 1).
Although Appellants contend that “a suitable prior-art method of
generating at the receiver a LO signal that is appropriately carrier-
frequency and phase locked to the QI signal was not known at the time of
the invention” (App. Br. 9), Appellants own admission acquiesces that
OFCSs were known at the time of the invention of Nambu dated May 9,
2000, by the disclosure in the Science journal dated the same year of 2000
(Amend. 6 (dated 08/05/2008)).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Nambu.
Further, independent claims 11, 16, and 20 having similar language and
claims 2 and 12 (depending from claims 1 and 11) not argued separately fall
with claim 1.
Claims 3-10, 13-15, 17-19, and 21
Appellants argue that claim 3-10, 13-15, 17-19, and 21are patentable
over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claims 1,
11, and 16 (App. Br. 12-13).
As noted supra, however, we see no deficiencies in Nambu since it
teaches all the features of claims 1, 11, and 16. We therefore affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 17, and 18 over Nambu in
Appeal 2010-003633
Application 11/210,973

10
further view of Olshansky; of claims 5 and 15 over Nambu in further view
of Yap; of claims 6 and 19 over Nambu in further view of Yap and Epworth;
of claim 7 over Nambu in further view of Yap, Epworth, and Olshansky; of
claims 8 and 9 over Nambu in further view of Yap, Epworth, Olshansky, and
Roberts; and of claim 10 over Nambu in further view of Yap and Takushima
and of claim 21 over Nambu in further view of Yap, Epworth, and Da Silva.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 16, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 3-10, 13-15, 17-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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

llw