Ex Parte Erfani et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 18, 2012

09895948 (B.P.A.I. May. 18, 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.
09/895,948 06/29/2001 Shervin Erfani 3-26-22 8097
22046 7590 05/21/2012
Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc
600-700 Mountain Avenue
Docket Administrator - Room 3D-201E
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
EXAMINER
CURS, NATHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2012 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 SHERVIN ERFANI, VICTOR B. LAWRENCE,
and KAZEM A. SOHRABY
____________

Appeal 2010-002839
Application 09/895,948
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and ERIC B. CHEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002839
Application 09/895,948

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-19, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to an advanced signaling system for
switching and control in integrated optical networks. Title.

Representative Claim
1. An apparatus for providing direct signaling for
switching and control of transmissions in an integrated optical
network, said apparatus comprising:

a plurality of electrical signaling interfaces for receiving
requests from external signaling networks;

a processing module for processing said requests from
said external signaling networks; and

at least one optical signaling interface for coupling to
optical components in said integrated optical network, said
optical signaling interface being operable to transmit processed
requests from said processing module for assignment of optical
channels for said optical components;

wherein signaling processed by said processing module
from said external signaling networks is provided directly to the
optical network components via said optical signaling interface
and is independent of legacy signaling methodologies employed
by ones of said external signaling networks.

Appeal 2010-002839
Application 09/895,948

3
Prior Art
Milton US 6,084,694 July 4, 2000
Moy US 2003/0035411 A1 Feb. 20, 2003
(filed Jan. 12, 2001)
Berg US 6,680,952 B1 Jan. 20, 2004
John Y. Wei et al., Network Control and Management of a
Reconfigurable WDM Network, 2 IEEE MIL. COMM. CONF. PROC. 581 (Oct.
1996).

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 8-10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Moy.
Claims 3 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moy and Wei.
Claims 2, 4-7, 11-14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Moy and Berg.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moy, Berg, and Wei.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moy and Milton.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1.

Appeal 2010-002839
Application 09/895,948

4
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Moy describes “wherein
signaling processed by said processing module from said external signaling
networks is provided directly to the optical network components via said
optical signaling interface and is independent of legacy signaling
methodologies employed by ones of said external signaling networks” as
recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 8-10, and 16
Appellants contend that no reasonable construction of the cited
material in Moy supports the Examiner’s position of a teaching of
independence in the optical network from legacy signaling methodologies
applied at network connection points. Reply Br. 2. The Examiner interprets
“signaling processed by said processing module from said external signaling
networks . . . is independent of the legacy signaling methodologies” as
encompassing legacy methodologies being no longer used past the interface
with the optical network. Ans. 15. The Examiner finds that the signaling
methodologies used to establish an optical trail across the network is
independent of the legacy signaling methodologies. Ans. 16.
We agree with the Examiner. Claim 1 does not recite that the
processing module, when processing electrical requests received from an
external electrical signaling network to generate processed optical signals,
uses a process that is independent of electrical signaling methodologies
employed by the external electrical signaling network. Claim 1 recites
“signaling processed by said processing module from said external signaling
Appeal 2010-002839
Application 09/895,948

5
networks is provided directly to the optical network components . . .
independent of legacy signaling methodologies employed by ones of said
external signaling networks.” In other words, the scope of claim 1
encompasses processing the received electrical requests into processed
optical signals using legacy methodologies, then providing the processed
optical signals (or “signaling processed by said processing module”) to the
optical network components using optical signaling methodologies (which
are “independent of legacy signaling methodologies”).
Appellants have not provided evidence or persuasive argument to
rebut the Examiner’s finding that the signal processing to establish an optical
trail described by Moy describes “signaling processed by said processing
module from said external signaling networks is provided directly to the
optical network components . . . independent of legacy signaling
methodologies employed by ones of said external signaling networks”
within the meaning of claim 1.
We agree with the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusion reached by the Examiner for the reasons given by the
Examiner in the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellants
have not presented arguments for separate patentability of claims 8-10 and
16, which thus fall with claim 1.

Appeal 2010-002839
Application 09/895,948

6
Section 103 rejections of claims 2-7, 11-15, and 17-19
Appellants have not presented arguments for separate patentability of
claims 2-7, 11-15, and 17-19, which thus fall with claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Moy describes “wherein
signaling processed by said processing module from said external signaling
networks is provided directly to the optical network components via said
optical signaling interface and is independent of legacy signaling
methodologies employed by ones of said external signaling networks” as
recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 8-10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Moy is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 3 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moy and Wei is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 2, 4-7, 11-14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Moy and Berg is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moy, Berg, and Wei is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moy and Milton 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). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).
Appeal 2010-002839
Application 09/895,948

7

AFFIRMED

babc