Ex Parte Nash et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2016

12282784 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/282,784 09/12/2008 Philip John Nash
20306 7590 08/22/2016
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
32NDFLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
08-1094 5064
EXAMINER
TRAN, HOANG Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2874
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2016 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 PHILIP JOHN NASH, ROGER IAN CRICKMORE,
DAVID JOHN HILL and JONATHAN WESTHALL
Appeal2014-001276
Application 12/282,784
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1--4, 7, 8, and 15-19. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a sensor system
comprising a line array of fiber-optic sensor packages, each package being
arranged to output a finite output pulse series of optical output pulses via its
package input/output (i/o) fiber responsive to input interrogating optical
pulses, wherein a fiber optic bus extends along the array, the bus including a
plurality of parallel bus fibers. Each package i/o fiber is optically coupled to
one of the bus fibers at a position along the array in a manner such that
Appeal2014-001276
Application 12/282,784
individual pulses of an output pulse series from corresponding packages that
are coupled to different bus fibers are interleaved. According to Appellants,
"[i]nterrogation of each package of an array of the invention is achieved
faster than in the case of a serial array because pulses which interrogate a
particular package do not first have to pass through other packages of the
array" (Spec. 2, 11. 5-7).
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A fibre-optic sensor array comprising a line array of fibre-
optic sensor packages each having a package input/output (i/o)
fibre and each being arranged to output a finite output pulse
series of optical output pulses via its package i/ o fibre in response
to input thereto of one or more interrogating optical pulses and
wherein the array comprises N fibre-optic bus fibres extending
in parallel along the length of the line array, each package i/o
fibre being optically coupled to one of said N bus fibres at a
respective position along the line array such that individual
pulses within an output pulse series from corresponding
packages coupled to different bus fibres are interleaved in the
array i/o.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Hodgson '233
Hodgson '334
Huang '046
us 6,084,233
US 6,282,334 B 1
US 6,449,046 Bl
July 4, 2000
Aug.28,2001
Sept. 10, 2002
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1--4, 7, 8, 15, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hodgson '233 in view of Hodgson '334.
2
Appeal2014-001276
Application 12/282,784
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hodgson '233 in view of Hodgson '334 and Huang.
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record in light of the
arguments advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we concur with
Appellants that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness regarding the claimed subject matter within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). In this regard, "the examiner bears the initial burden, on
review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie
case ofunpatentability." In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
Concerning the Examiner's first stated rejection and as explained by
Appellants, the Examiner has not shown that the applied prior art references
alone, or in combination, teach or suggest (1) a line array of sensor packages
wherein each package has an i/o fiber that is optically coupled to one of
several parallel extending bus fibers at a position along the array in a manner
such that individual pulses of an output pulse series from corresponding
packages that are coupled to different bus fibers are interleaved in the array
i/o as required by claim 1, and/or (2) wherein a sensor system including a
linear array of fiber optic sensor packages and a fiber optic bus extending
along the array including a plurality of parallel bus fibers, "wherein the
system is arranged such that physically adjacent packages of the array are
always coupled to different ones of said N bus fibres such that individual
pulses within an output pulse series from corresponding packages coupled to
different bus fibres are interleaved" as required by claim 17 (App. Br. 5-8;
Reply Br. 2-5; claims 1, 17).
3
Appeal2014-001276
Application 12/282,784
In particular, the Examiner finds that Hodgson '233 "does not teach a
sensor 'such that individual pulses within an output pulse series from
corresponding packages coupled to a different bus fiber'"(Final Act. 3). The
Examiner has further determined that Hodgson '233 lacks a teaching of
"'having individual pulses within an output pulse series from corresponding
packages coupled to a different bus fibers are interleaved in the array i/o
fiber' since the signals are being outputted by the packages to the same
return bus (120)" of Hodgson '233 (Ans. 3--4; claims 1, 17; Hodgson '233,
Fig. 5A). Indeed, and as argued by Appellants, Hodgson '233 teaches that
"the total path length from the last sensor in a sub-array must be smaller than
the total path length of the first sensor in the next sub-array" resulting in a
lack of interleaving of individual output pulses from corresponding packages
coupled to different bus fibers (App. Br. 6; Hodgson '233, col. 14, 11. 19-
23).
The Examiner turns to Hodgson '334 and maintains that the latter
reference teaches a system including "a plurality of packages (241 )"
arranged such that individual packages output "pulses into different bus lines
(270-274) for the purpose of reducing the noise between pulses" (Ans. 4;
Hodgson '334, Fig. 2A, abstract). The Examiner argues that Hodgson '334
provides "a interleaving scheme (Figure 2a) wherein sensors (241) are
coupled to different bus lines thus meeting the limitation of teach [sic] 'such
that individual pulses within an output pulse series from corresponding
packages coupled to a different bus fiber are interleaved"' (Ans. 6).
As argued by Appellants, however, the Examiner has not satisfactorily
explained how Hodgson '334 teaches or suggests how the Figure 2A system
provides for interleaving of the output pulses within an output pulse series
4
Appeal2014-001276
Application 12/282,784
from corresponding packages coupled to different bus fibers, as required by
Appellants' claims, given the lack of description of such interleaving in
Hodgson '334 (Reply Br. 4; App. Br. 5-7; see Spec. 3, 11. 15-18, 10, 1. 19 -
p. 11, 1. 11, Fig. 6). Nor has the Examiner established how Hodgson '334's
additional teachings respecting the Figure 10 embodiment and its separate
return buses/fibers, and/or the use of ASE filters to reduce optical noise at
wavelengths that are not of interest as set forth in the cited abstract, teach or
suggest that such noise reduction accrues along with interleaving of pulses,
the latter as claimed by Appellants.
In sum, the Examiner has not established that the outputting of pulses
from packages into different bus lines (270-274) connected with different
receivers (280-284) as depicted, for example, in Figure 2A of Hodgson
'334, even if noise filters are interposed, provides an arrangement that
interleaves output pulses in a manner required by Appellants' claim 1 and/or
Appellants' claim 17 for reasons argued by Appellants (App. Br. 5-7; Reply
Br. 3--4; see Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 4--6).
Consequently, the Examiner has not established that the proposed
combination of Hodgson '233 and Hodgson '334 would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to a sensor system or a fiber optic sensor array as
required by Appellants' claims.
Nor has the Examiner established that the additional prior art applied
in the Examiner's separate obviousness rejection of dependent claim 16
serves to cure the aforementioned deficiency in the base rejection over
Hodgson '233 and Hodgson '334.
It follows that we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections.
5
Appeal2014-001276
Application 12/282,784
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner to reject the
appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
6