11616917 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

Ex Parte Kilper et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 2013

11616917 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

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. 11/616,917 12/28/2006 Daniel Charles Kilper Kilper 9-9 (LCNT/127779) 3382 46363 7590 05/31/2013 WALL & TONG, LLP/ ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. 25 James Way Eatontown, NJ 07724 EXAMINER BOLDA, ERIC L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DANIEL CHARLES KILPER and CHRISTOPHER ALAN WHITE ____________ Appeal 2010-000627 Application 11/616,917 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-000627 Application 11/616,917 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to avoiding transient errors by selecting an initial level of amplification according to an anticipated number of optical channels within a multiplexed optical signal to be amplified and a desired power level of a resulting amplified multiplexed optical signal. The level of amplification is then incrementally adjusted in response to, for example, increases or decreases in the number of channels within the multiplexed optical signals. Spec. 1:18-23. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method, comprising: selecting an initial level of amplification according to an anticipated number of optical channels within a multiplexed optical signal to be amplified and a desired power level of a resulting amplified multiplexed optical signal; amplifying the multiplexed optical signal according to the initial level of amplification; adapting the initial level of amplification to a level of amplification in response to changes in the number of optical channels within the multiplexed optical signal; and limiting the level of amplification when the power level of a resulting amplified optical channel is greater than a desired power level due to a positive transient. Appeal 2010-000627 Application 11/616,917 3 THE REFERENCE and THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Arnold (US 6,515,777 B1; issued Feb. 4, 2003). ISSUES The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that: 1. Arnold teaches the limitation of “a resulting amplified optical channel is greater than a desired power level due to a positive transient” as recited in claim 1; and 2. Arnold teaches the limitation of “a maximum level of amplification” as recited in claim 2. ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 3-15 Appellants argue that Arnold is silent with respect to limiting the level of amplification when the power level of a resulting amplified optical channel is greater than a desired power level due to a positive transient where the level of amplification refers to the level of amplification of a multiplexed optical signal (App. Br. 12). Appellants in particular argue that the Examiner’s reference to the second stage AGC (11) of Arnold’s Figure 1 only operates upon a plurality of demultiplexed channels individually and thus does not satisfy the claim limitation of “limiting the level of amplification when the power level of a resulting amplified optical channel is greater than a desired power level due to a positive transient” which refers to the level of amplification of a multiplexed optical signal (App. Br. 13). Appeal 2010-000627 Application 11/616,917 4 We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. We first note that the disputed limitation of “limiting the level of amplification when the power level of a resulting amplified optical channel is greater than a desired power level due to a positive transient” does not refer to the resulting amplification of the multiplexed optical signal. In other words, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Appellants further argue that Arnold does not teach taking any particular action with respect to a positive transient (App. Br. 13). We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 6) that when a fault occurs due to a source of an optical signal failing, a positive transient can occur in the amplifiers (col. 2, ll. 1-24; col. 3, ll. 30-33). Arnold teaches overriding the AGC arrangement in the case of such a fault (col. 3, ll. 30-31). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3-15. Claim 2 Appellants argue that Arnold fails to teach or suggest the limitation of “wherein the level of amplification is limited to a maximum level of amplification,” as recited in dependent claim 2. In response, the Examiner pointed (Ans. 7) to the teaching in Arnold of “the AGC arrangement 11 in the first OADM which detects the fail condition sets to highest gain/minimum loss” (emphasis in original) as meeting the disputed limitation (col. 4, ll. 27-32). Appellants counter argue that the cited portion indicates an unbounded amplification (Reply Br. 6). Appeal 2010-000627 Application 11/616,917 5 We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. The cited portion by the Examiner clearly refers to the highest gain (i.e., maximum level of amplification) rather than an unbounded amplification. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in finding that: 1. Arnold teaches the limitation of “a resulting amplified optical channel is greater than a desired power level due to a positive transient” as recited in claim 1; and 2. Arnold teaches the limitation of “a maximum level of amplification” as recited in claim 2. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 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 kis