Mellanox Technologies Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 26, 2020

15137048 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 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.
15/137,048 04/25/2016 Rafi Lagziel 1058-1089.1 6203
82253 7590 10/26/2020
KLIGLER & ASSOCIATES PATENT ATTORNEYS LTD.
P.O. Box 57651
Tel Aviv, 61576
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
JORDAN, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2020 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):
alon@dkpat.co.il
daniel@dkpat.co.il
info@dkpat.co.il
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAFI LAGZIEL, NIMER KHAZEN, and SHMUEL LEVY
Appeal 2019-004717
Application 15/137,048
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and JUSTIN T. ARBES,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17 and 19–22. Claim 18 was
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 Mellanox
Technologies Ltd. Our decision will make reference to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed April 26, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.,” filed May 29, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
April 2, 2019) and Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.,” mailed
November 30, 2017) from which the appeal is taken.
Appeal 2019-004717
Application 15/137,048

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to compact optical fiber splitters.
Spec. 1:8–10. The Specification explains that “an optical fiber splitter
module may be used to physically separate and bend [] individual fibers in
[a] fiber cable into two or more different output fiber cables in a very small
module volume, in order to route the fibers to their destination in the
system.” Id. at 6:8–13. But “[a]s the number of fibers in the bundle
increase[s], the size of the splitter increases accordingly.” Id. at 6:13–18.
Appellant’s invention of “highly compact optical interconnects” seeks to
solve that problem. Id. at 6:19–8:10.
A portion of Figure 1 is reproduced below.

Figure 1 depicts optical interconnect 10 comprising “a lateral array of eight
optical waveguides 20 formed in a substrate 15 which terminate with eight
respective integrated micro-lenses 13 on either side.” Id. at 8:12–17.
Appeal 2019-004717
Application 15/137,048

3
Optical waveguides 20 have bends 45 and are positioned horizontally along
the X-axis (terminating at face 40 of substrate 15) and Y-axis (terminating at
face 35 of substrate 15). Id. at 8:23–31. Micro-lenses 13 focus light rays
from the ends of the respective optical waveguides onto respective optical
elements, such as optical fiber facets of optical fibers in a connecting ferrule
of an optical fiber cable. Id. at 9:1–15. The Specification discloses that
“[a] variety of optical splitter module configurations can be fabricated using
optical interface 30 as a basic building block.” Id. at 13:28–30; see, e.g., id.
at 14:5–17:14, Figs. 3A, 3B (depicting T-shaped optical splitter module 168
with two rows of eight optical waveguides 20 “stacked vertically” and
connecting sixteen-fiber ferrule 165 to two eight-fiber ferrules 70).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An optical interconnect to direct optical signals between
first and second ferrules of optical fibers, comprising:
a substrate;
a first optical interface, including a plurality of first
micro-lenses, located on a first face of the substrate, wherein the
first optical interface is configured to connect to the first ferrule
of optical fibers in a manner such that each first micro-lens is
aligned with a light path to a single fiber of the first ferrule;
a second optical interface, including a plurality of second
micro-lenses, located on a second face of the substrate, wherein
the second optical interface is configured to connect to the
second ferrule of optical fibers in a manner such that each second
micro-lens is aligned with a light path to a single fiber of the
second ferrule;
a plurality of optical waveguides, which are formed in the
substrate and are configured to convey respective optical signals
between the first optical interface and the second optical
interface, wherein the optical waveguides conveying optical
Appeal 2019-004717
Application 15/137,048

4
signals between the first and second optical interfaces are
included in a single row;
wherein each of the first micro-lenses is configured to
focus or collimate optical signals into a respective individual one
of the optical waveguides, such that the light from each
individual optical fiber of the first ferrule is coupled through a
respective individual first micro-lens to a respective individual
waveguide; and
wherein each of the second micro-lenses is configured to
focus or collimate optical signals into a respective individual one
of the optical waveguides,
wherein each of the plurality of waveguides includes at
least one horizontal bend and wherein the at least one horizontal
bends of the plurality of waveguides are included in a single
plane.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Raj US 2002/0096686 A1 July 25, 2002
Cho US 2006/0045418 A1 Mar. 2, 2006
Hamazaki US 2009/0016734 A1 Jan. 15, 2009
Ohta US 2010/0158446 A1 June 24, 2010

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–11, 17, and 19–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ohta, Hamazaki, and Cho. Non-Final Act. 4–16;
Ans. 2–9.
Claims 12–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ohta, Hamazaki, Cho, and Raj. Non-Final Act. 17–20;
Ans. 9.
Appeal 2019-004717
Application 15/137,048

5
ISSUES
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–17 and
19–22 are in error. Appeal Br. 5–15; Reply Br. 1–6. These arguments
present us with the following issues:
(1) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Ohta, Hamazaki, and Cho teaches a “plurality of optical
waveguides . . . included in a single row,” wherein “each
of the plurality of waveguides includes at least one
horizontal bend and wherein the at least one horizontal
bends of the plurality of waveguides are included in a
single plane,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 17?
(2) Did the Examiner err in finding that optical waveguides
comprising “a plurality of horizontal bends within the
single plane,” as recited in claim 5 and similarly recited in
claim 19, would have been obvious based on the
combination of Ohta, Hamazaki, and Cho?
(3) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Ohta, Hamazaki, Cho, and Raj teaches a “plurality of
optical waveguides includ[ing] optical reflectors formed
in the waveguides to implement the horizontal bends,”
as recited in claim 12?

OPINION
I. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–11, 17, and 19–22 Over
Ohta, Hamazaki, and Cho
Independent Claims 1 and 17
Claims 1 and 17 recite a “plurality of optical waveguides . . . included
in a single row,” wherein “each of the plurality of waveguides includes at
least one horizontal bend and wherein the at least one horizontal bends of the
plurality of waveguides are included in a single plane.” The Examiner finds
Appeal 2019-004717
Application 15/137,048

6
that the combination of Ohta and Cho teaches the limitation. Non-Final Act.
4–5, 8–9; Ans. 2–8. Specifically, the Examiner finds that
Ohta clearly shows optical waveguides conveying optical signals
between first and second optical interfaces where the waveguides
are included in a single row. The Ohta waveguides each have a
bend to accommodate the relative positions of the two optical
interfaces. The difference between Ohta and the claimed device
. . . is that Ohta does not expressly show that the bends in the
waveguides are “included in a single plane.” Cho clearly shows
this waveguide bending arrangement in at least figure 8B . . . .
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, that in
addition to the many arrangements already disclosed, . . . the
Ohta device could be alternatively arranged where the bend[s] in
the waveguides are included in a single plane, as claimed, to
accommodate optical interfaces and ferrules at various positions
and orientations relative to the optical interconnection block.
Ans. 3–4, 6 (stating that “Cho is introduced to show . . . a bending
arrangement for the waveguides where the waveguides are in a single
plane”); see Non-Final Act. 8–9 (citing the “geometry/configuration” shown
in Figures 6 and 8B of Cho and paragraph 21 (“The optical interconnection
block connects a plurality of multi-layered optical waveguides to transmit
light beams to the optical waveguides.”)).
Appellant argues that the limitation above is not taught by the
combination of Ohta and Cho because (1) the waveguide bends in Ohta are
in “separate planes” (as shown in Figure 1 of Ohta), and (2) although Cho
has horizontal bends in a single plane, it “does not suggest a single row
embodiment, as required by claim 1.” Appeal Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 1–5.
Appellant contends that Cho does not teach a single row of optical
waveguides because Figures 6 and 8B are cross-sectional views of the
two-dimensional waveguide array shown in Figures 3A and 4. Appeal Br. 8.
In support of that assertion, Appellant cites references in Cho to an optical
Appeal 2019-004717
Application 15/137,048

7
fiber “bundle” and Cho’s description of dimensions R, L, and h in the
two-dimensional waveguide array of Figure 3B. Id. at 8–10 (citing Cho
¶¶ 18, 22, 37, 59, 63, 64). Appellant further argues that Cho’s “light paths”
are in a single row (along the Y axis in Figure 3B), but the bends in those
light paths are in “separate parallel planes.” Id. at 11–13. According to
Appellant, “the teachings of this embodiment would be used by the person
of the art inclined to use a single row of light paths, and not a modification
not suggested by the prior art.” Id. at 13.
We are not persuaded of error because Appellant’s arguments do not
account for the combined teachings of the references as set forth by the
Examiner. The Examiner relies on Ohta as teaching a “plurality of optical
waveguides . . . included in a single row,” citing optical waveguides 14
shown in Figures 1 and 2. Non-Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 3. The Examiner relies
on Cho as teaching the particular configuration of waveguide bends recited
in the claims, namely “horizontal bends . . . in a single plane.” Non-Final
Act. 8–9; Ans. 3–4. Cho teaches such an arrangement in at least Figures 6
and 8B, reproduced below.

Appeal 2019-004717
Application 15/137,048

8

Figure 6 depicts “an assembled structure of optical interconnection blocks,
a multi-layered optical [printed circuit board (PCB)], and optical
transmit/receive modules,” and Figure 8 depicts “a structure of an optical
fiber bundle bent by the angle of 90º.” Cho ¶¶ 50, 59. The waveguide bends
are shown in the X-Z plane horizontal relative to the termination of the
waveguides. Indeed, Appellant acknowledges that “Cho describes
horizontal bends in a single plane” (albeit in a multi-row arrangement
according to Appellant). Reply Br. 3.
The combination proposed by the Examiner is modifying the bends in
Ohta’s row of optical waveguides 14 to be in a single plane, as taught by
Cho. Ans. 3–4, 6. Cho’s teaching of waveguides in a bundle with multiple
rows (as shown in Figures 3A, 3B, and 4) does not deter the combination,
given the Examiner’s reliance on Ohta—not Cho—as teaching a “plurality
of optical waveguides . . . included in a single row” and Cho’s clear teaching
of “horizontal bends . . . in a single plane” for one row in the bundle (as
shown in Figures 6 and 8B).
Appeal 2019-004717
Application 15/137,048

9
For similar reasons, we disagree with Appellant’s argument regarding
Cho’s “light paths” in a single row but “separate parallel planes.” See App.
Br. 11–13. Cho teaches optical interconnection block 20 having optical fiber
bundle 21 where “a diameter of the fiber is very much less than the diameter
R of a light beam 24 for transmitting optical signals of each channel.” Cho
¶ 40. The Examiner, however, relies on Cho’s teaching of individual rows
of fibers, not the light paths of which some of them are a part. Non-Final
Act. 8–9; Ans. 3–4. Again, Cho’s additional teaching regarding light paths
through multiple fibers does not deter the proposed combination, given
Cho’s clear teaching regarding one row in the bundle (as shown in Figures 6
and 8B).
Finally, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated, based on the teachings of Cho described
above, to modify the bends in Ohta’s row of optical waveguides 14 to be in
the same plane in order to accommodate connections at different “positions
and orientations relative to the optical interconnection block.” See
Non-Final Act. 9; Ans. 4. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1 and 17.

Dependent Claims 5 and 19
Claim 1 recites that “each of the plurality of waveguides includes at
least one horizontal bend.” As explained above, the Examiner relies on the
waveguide bends of Ohta modified to be in a single plane based on the
teachings of Cho. Non-Final Act. 4–5, 8–9; Ans. 2–8.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites that “each optical
waveguide comprises a plurality of horizontal bends within the single
Appeal 2019-004717
Application 15/137,048

10
plane.” Claim 19 depends from claim 17 and recites a similar limitation.
The Examiner finds that “[r]epeating bends using the same geometry of
Cho” would have been obvious as simply the “duplication of parts” in the
combined device. Non-Final Act. 11. Appellant disagrees, asserting that
“optical fibers are fragile and are limited in the bend radius they can
accommodate,” such that “[a]dding further bends to the fibers of Cho [would
require] redesign of the system to allow for further bends.” Appeal Br. 14;
Reply Br. 5.
We are not persuaded of error by the Examiner. As the Examiner
correctly points out, because Cho “shows arrays of fiber providing bends in
a single plane” and “[t]he Ohta waveguides are already bent,” a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood “how to form these bends
without damaging the optical fibers.” See Ans. 8. We agree that adding
another bend (in addition to the horizontal bend in a single plane of the
combined device) would have been obvious based on the teachings of Ohta
and Cho. We further note that Cho teaches an interconnect structure with
two horizontal bends in a single plane, as depicted with the two L-shaped
waveguides in optical interconnection blocks 20L and 20R connected by
optical waveguides 26a and 26b in Figure 6. See Cho ¶ 51. The Examiner’s
finding that duplicating the horizontal bend of Cho would have been
obvious, therefore, is consistent with the teachings of Cho. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 19.

Appeal 2019-004717
Application 15/137,048

11
Dependent Claims 2–4, 6–11, and 20–22
Appellant does not argue separately claims 2–4, 6–11, and 22, which
depend from claim 1, or claims 20 and 21, which depend from claim 17.
We sustain the rejection of claims 2–4, 6–11, and 20–22. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

II. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 12–16 Over
Ohta, Hamazaki, Cho, and Raj
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the plurality of
optical waveguides include optical reflectors formed in the waveguides to
implement the horizontal bends.” The Examiner relies on a combination of
Ohta, Hamazaki, and Cho with Raj, citing in particular Raj’s “structure 102
with [an] unnumbered reflector” in Figure 1. Non-Final Act. 17; Ans. 9.
Appellant argues that the optical reflector in Raj (shown as reflecting
surfaces 202 and 302 in Figures 2 and 3) is not part of, and is separated by a
“free air light path[]” from, the optical waveguide (shown as waveguides
204 and 304 in Figures 2 and 3). Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 5–6. Therefore,
according to Appellant, the optical reflector of Raj is not “formed in” the
waveguide itself. Id.
We are not persuaded of error by the Examiner. Claim 1 recites
“a plurality of optical waveguides . . . formed in the substrate.”
As explained above, the Examiner relies on Ohta as teaching the limitation,
citing optical waveguides 14 formed in device body 16. Non-Final Act. 4–5.
The Examiner also cites Raj’s teaching of an optical reflector and concludes
that it would have been obvious to “use an in-waveguide reflector along the
lines of Raj in a system according to Ohta in view of Hamazaki and Cho . . .
to direct light” in the combined device. Id. at 17. Although the optical
Appeal 2019-004717
Application 15/137,048

12
reflector of Raj is separate from Raj’s waveguide, the Examiner relies on the
waveguides of Ohta—not Raj—as teaching the claimed “plurality of optical
waveguides,” such that the references in combination teach an in-waveguide
reflector. We also note that, just as the optical waveguides of Ohta are
formed in a substrate, Raj’s optical reflector in structure 102 can be formed
in a substrate. See, e.g., Raj ¶¶ 7, 9 (“the reflective surface may be formed
within a substrate”), 16, 24 (“Reflecting surface 202 may be formed either
on or within substrate 206.”); Non-Final Act. 17 (citing Raj ¶ 16, Fig. 1).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that it would have
been obvious based on Raj to use an optical reflector in the optical
waveguides to implement the waveguide bends in the combined device of
Ohta, Hamazaki, and Cho.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12, as well
as the rejection of claims 13–16, which depend from claim 12 and which
Appellant does not argue separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17 and 19–22. The Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1–11, 17, and 19–22 as being unpatentable over Ohta,
Hamazaki, and Cho under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and claims 12–16 as being
unpatentable over Ohta, Hamazaki, Cho, and Raj under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
affirmed.

Appeal 2019-004717
Application 15/137,048

13
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–11, 17,
19–22
103 Ohta, Hamazaki,
Cho
1–11, 17,
19–22

12–16 103 Ohta, Hamazaki,
Cho, Raj
12–16
Overall
Outcome
1–17, 19–22

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED