Kakande, Joseph J.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 8, 2020

14728919 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2020)

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.
14/728,919 06/02/2015 Joseph J. Kakande 4100-817288-US 1487
114592 7590 01/08/2020
Nokia Technologies Oy
C/O Davidson Sheehan LLP
6836 Austin Center Blvd.
Suite 320
Austin, TX 78731
EXAMINER
BARUA, PRANESH K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/08/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
docketing@ds-patent.com
nokia@ds-patent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte JOSEPH J. KAKANDE

Appeal 2019-000901
Application 14/728,919
Technology Center 2600

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. EVANS, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 7–10, 14–16, and 20–25. Claims 6,
19, and 26 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Ans. 3. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Alcatel-Lucent
USA, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000901
Application 14/728,919

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure “relates generally to optical networks and,
more particularly, to transceivers in optical networks.” Spec. ¶ 2. According
to the Specification, the invention reduces optical receiver cost and power
consumption “by implementing a multi-endpoint optical receiver that
includes an analog switch to receive a plurality of analog electric signals
generated by a corresponding plurality of photodetectors and selectively
provide one of the plurality of analog electric signals for conversion to a
digital electrical signal.” Spec. ¶ 18; see Spec., Abstract.2 Rejected claims 1,
9, and 15 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a plurality of optical/electrical (O/E) converters to couple
to a corresponding plurality of optical fibers;
an analog switch to receive a plurality of analog electric
signals generated by the plurality of O/E converters and to
selectively provide one of the plurality of analog electric signals
for conversion to a digital electrical signal; and
a controller to provide a control signal to the analog
switch, wherein the control signal indicates the one of the
plurality of analog electric signals, and wherein the analog switch
asserts at least one loss-of-signal (LOS) signal to the controller
in response to at least one of the plurality of analog electric
signals having a value that is below a threshold value; and
wherein the controller provides the control signal having a value

2 We note that each pending claim (including claims 6, 19, and 26) recites
“the analog switch asserts at least one loss-of-signal (LOS) signal to the
controller in response to at least one of the plurality of analog electric signals
having a value that is below a threshold value.” Appeal Br. 11–16 (Claims
Appendix). Notably, the Figures do not depict, and the Specification does
not describe, switches detecting and/or signaling an LOS. Rather, the
Figures and Specification indicate an amplifier detects and signals the LOS.
Spec. ¶¶ 38–41, Fig. 8.
Appeal 2019-000901
Application 14/728,919

3
determined based on the at least one LOS signal and priorities of
individual ones of the O/E converters.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious in view of Dahlfort (US 2014/0140689 A1; May 22, 2014),
Takeda (US 2015/0229411 A1; Aug. 13, 2015), Agazzi (US 2011/0081152
A1; Apr. 7, 2011), and Natori (US 2006/0120718 A1; June 8, 2006). Final
Act. 4–13.
Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
view of Dahlfort, Takeda, Agazzi, Natori, and Raza (US 2010/0211664 A1;
Aug. 19, 2010). Final Act. 13–15.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
in view of Dahlfort, Takeda, Agazzi, Natori, and Watanabe (US
2005/0226628 A1; Oct. 13, 2005). Final Act. 15–17.
Claims 21, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
in view of Dahlfort, Takeda, Agazzi, Natori, and Cannon (US 2004/0131353
A1; July 8, 2005). Final Act. 17–20.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds a combination of Dahlfort, Takeda, Agazzi, and
Natori teaches or suggests every limitation recited in independent claims 1,
9, and 15. Final Act. 4–12. Of particular relevance to this Appeal, the
Examiner finds Dahlfort teaches or suggests an apparatus comprising
multiple O/E converters coupled to optical fibers, an analog switch to
receive multiple analog electric signals generated by the O/E converters and
to selectively provide one of the received signals, and a controller to provide
a control signal to the switch indicating the one of the received signals. Final
Appeal 2019-000901
Application 14/728,919

4
Act. 4 (citing Dahlfort ¶ 33, Figs. 2B, 3B). The Examiner finds Dahlfort fails
to teach an analog switch asserting a loss-of-signal (LOS) signal to the
controller in response to an analog signal being below a threshold vale and
providing a control signal based upon the LOS signal, but finds Takeda
teaches this subject matter. Final Act. 5 (citing Takeda ¶¶ 76, 82, Fig. 9).
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art to incorporate Takeda’s LOS detector functionality into
Dahlfort’s switch functions in order to send a control signal based on the
“LOS signal so that the apparatus can be aware of losses during transmission
and take precautionary steps to fix the loss in order to reduce congestion or
loss of commination.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner further finds Takeda
teaches using a detected loss of signal to prevent damage to a photodetector
and explains that it was well understood that an optical receiver with a
damaged photodetector would not properly detect signals, which would lead
to loss of communication. Ans. 4 (citing Takeda ¶ 97).
Appellant argues combining Dahlfort and Takeda, as the Examiner
proposes, still fails to teach an “analog switch asserts at least one loss-of-
signal (LOS) signal to the controller in response to at least one of the
plurality of analog electric signals having a value that is below a threshold
value,” as recited in the claims. Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant
further argues the Examiner’s asserted rationale for combining Dahlfort’s
and Takeda’s teachings are not supported by a rational underpinning and the
Examiner’s rationale does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have further modified the proposed combination (i.e., the
combination resulting from incorporating Takeda’s teachings into Dahlfort’s
switch) so that Dahlfort’s switch would have used the LOS signal to select
Appeal 2019-000901
Application 14/728,919

5
one of the electrical inputs received from the O/E converters. Appeal Br. 6–
8; Reply Br. 4.
Dahlfort discloses optical transceiver including, among other
elements, an analog switch that selects one of two photo detectors (e.g., an
avalanche photodiode or Positive Intrinsic negative (ADP/PIN)). Dahlfort
¶ 33, Fig. 3B. Dahlfort depicts and describes the switch as receiving
incoming light from the two PDs and selecting one of the signals to output to
a linear amplifier and trans impedance amplifier (LA/TIA). Dahlfort ¶ 33,
Fig. 3B.
Takeda relates to systems and methods for controlling variable optical
attenuators (VOAs) in optical receivers. Spec., Abstract. Takeda discloses
that VOAs may help protect photodiodes (PDs), which are one type of
photodetector, from damage caused by being exposed to “an input optical
power beyond a rated value.” Takeda ¶ 4. Specifically, the VOAs may
attenuate the power to which the photodiodes are exposed “by feedback-
controlling a loss amount” (the loss amount is referred to as a VOA loss) so
“the reception power of the PD does not exceed the rated value.” Takeda ¶ 4.
Takeda’s VOA receives a wavelength-division multiplexed (WDM) signal
via an optical transmission line and, based on a control signal, adjusts the
WDM signal’s power and outputs a power-adjusted signal to a
demultiplexer. Takeda ¶¶ 35–36. The demultiplexer then provides the
power-adjusted demultiplexed optical signals to respective optical receivers
“such that an input optical power supplied to each of the optical receivers 33
does not exceed an upper limit (a maximum reception level) of an available
range for the optical receiver[s] 33.” Takeda ¶¶ 36, 38. To determine the
power adjustment, a controller monitors the input optical power to the VOA
Appeal 2019-000901
Application 14/728,919

6
and adjusts the VOA loss as necessary so the input power to the optical
receivers does not exceed the maximum reception level. Takeda ¶ 37.
Takeda includes a loss-of-signal detector for PD and outputs an LOS signal
to the controller that may alter the control signal the controller sends to the
VOA. Takeda ¶¶ 76, 82–84, 87.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained how the proposed combination of Dahlfort and Takeda teaches or
suggests the particular relationship and arrangement recited in independent
claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 9 and 15.
Specifically, the entire point of Takeda’s cited teachings is to attenuate an
optical signal (while reducing delay in cancelling an LOS state when the
previously lost signal is recovered) to prevent damage to the PDs.
Thus, even accepting the Examiner’s findings regarding Dahlfort’s
and Takeda’s teachings, the Examiner’s proposed combination results in
Dahlfort’s system including a variable optical attenuator that, based at least
in part on an LOS signal asserted by an LOS detector, attenuates an
incoming optical signal prior to passing the optical signals to photodetectors.
The Examiner has not explained sufficiently how incorporating Takeda’s
teachings into Dahlfort’s system would result in an analog switch that selects
one of multiple received optical signals based on a control signal from a
controller, wherein that control signal was based on an LOS signal received
from the analog switch, as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 15.
Accordingly, on this record, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Dahlfort, Takeda, Agazzi, and Natori. Claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 14, 16, and 20–25
ultimately depend from one of claims 1, 9, and 15, and incorporate the
Appeal 2019-000901
Application 14/728,919

7
limitations of the respective independent claim. The Examiner finds Raza
teaches or suggests additional limitations in claims 2 and 10, Watanabe
teaches or suggests additional limitations recited in claims 7, 14, and 20, and
Cannon teaches or suggests additional limitations recited in claims 21, 23,
and 25. The Examiner, however, does not find any of Raza, Watanabe, and
Cannon cure the identified deficiency with respect to the independent
claims. Nor does the Examiner provide any further explanation for any of
the dependent claims regarding this deficiency. Therefore, for the same
reasons, we also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 7,
8, 10, 14, 16, and 20–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7–10, 14–16, and 20–25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 8, 9, 15,
16, 22, 24
103 Dahlfort,Takeda,
Agazzi, Natori
1, 8, 9, 15,
16, 22, 24
2, 10 103 Dahlfort,Takeda,
Agazzi, Natori,
Raza
2, 10
7, 14, 20 103 Dahlfort,Takeda,
Agazzi, Natori,
Wantanabe
7, 14, 20
21, 23, 25 103 Dahlfort,Takeda,
Agazzi, Natori,
Cannon
21, 23, 25
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 7–10,
14–16, 20–25
Appeal 2019-000901
Application 14/728,919

8
REVERSED