nLIGHT, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2020

15143314 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 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.
15/143,314 04/29/2016 Aaron Brown 7830-94974-02 4965
11014 7590 10/28/2020
Klarquist Sparkman, LLP (nLight Photonics 2)
121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204
EXAMINER
LI, TRACY Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2020 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):
docketing@klarquist.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AARON BROWN, DAHV A.V. KLINER,
SCOTT R. KARLSEN, JEREMY YOUNG,
RYAN HAWKE, DAVID R. BALSLEY, and RON STEVENS
____________

Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1–27, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest
as nLIGHT, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention concerns “fiber optic
inspection apparatuses and methods.” Spec. 1:10.2 Although the
Specification states that “[c]onventional methods of inspecting and
documenting an output end of industrial fibers used in fiber laser products
are inconvenient or inadequate,” the Specification fails to explain how the
invention addresses any deficiencies in conventional methods. See id.
at 1:13–2:10.
Exemplary Claims
Independent claims 1 and 15 exemplify the claims at issue and read
as follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a camera;
a dark field illumination source; and
a fiber inspection housing including
a fiber connector input situated to receive an
optical fiber connector so that an optical fiber output
end of the optical fiber connector is removably insertable
into an interior region of the fiber inspection housing and
securable at a predetermined location in the interior
region,

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed April 29, 2016; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed July 10, 2018; “Advisory Act.” for the Advisory Action, mailed
September 28, 2018; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed December 10,
2018; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed March 1, 2019; and
“Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed April 28, 2019.
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

3
a camera input situated to receive and secure the
camera so that the camera is in optical communication
with the interior region and the optical fiber output end,
and
a dark field illumination source input situated to
receive the dark field illumination source so that light
emitted from the dark field illumination source is
received by the optical fiber output end at a dark field
illumination angle and is scattered by contamination or
defects associated with the optical fiber output end so
as to be detectable by the camera.
15. An optical fiber inspection method, comprising:
removably receiving in an optical fiber connector input
of a fiber inspection housing an optical fiber connector having
an optical fiber axis so that an output fiber end of the optical
fiber connector is situated at a predetermined location in an
interior region of the fiber inspection housing;
bright field illuminating through the interior region of the
fiber inspection housing at least one surface of the output fiber
end and obtaining a first image of the at least one surface with
a camera optically coupled to the output fiber end through the
interior region; and
dark field illuminating through the interior region the at
least one surface of the output fiber end and obtaining a second
image of the at least one surface with the camera.
Appeal Br. 18, 20 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Vodyanoy et al.
(“Vodyanoy”)
US 2002/0135871 A1 Sept. 26, 2002
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

4
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–6, 8, 10, 13–16, and 19–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kiani, Hallett, and Wilson. Final Act. 5–8,
10–13.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kiani, Hallett, Wilson, and Suzuki. Final Act. 9.
Claims 9, 18, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kiani, Hallett, Wilson, and Vodyanoy. Final Act.
9–10, 13.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kiani, Hallett, Wilson, and Tong. Final Act. 10.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kiani, Hallett, Wilson, and Castonguay. Final Act. 13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the § 103 rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we
agree with the Examiner’s obviousness determinations for claims 1–4, 7–9,
Name Reference Date
Kiani et al. (“Kiani”) US 2004/0125366 A1 July 1, 2004
Suzuki et al. (“Suzuki”) US 2006/0153503 A1 July 13, 2006
Castonguay et al.
(“Castonguay”)
US 2012/0180298 A1 July 19, 2012
Wilson et al. (“Wilson”) US 2013/0229650 A1 Sept. 5, 2013
Hallett et al. (“Hallett”) US 2015/0063756 A1 Mar. 5, 2015
Tong et al. (“Tong”) US 2016/0178858 A1 June 23, 2016
(filed July 17, 2014)
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

5
11–16, and 18–27 but disagree with the Examiner’s obviousness
determinations for claims 5, 6, 10, and 17. We adopt the Examiner’s
findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action, Advisory Action, and
Answer for claims 1–4, 7–9, 11–16, and 18–27. See Final Act. 2–15;
Advisory Act. 1–2; Ans. 3–17. We add the following to address and
emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 103 Rejection of Claims 1–6, 8, 10, 13–16, and 19–26
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1 AND 15
As noted above, the § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 15 rests on Kiani,
Hallett, and Wilson. See Final Act. 5–7, 10–11. Appellant argues that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 15 because an ordinarily skilled
artisan would not have been motivated “to modify Kiani to ‘provide the
optical coupling that makes sure that the fiber optic connectors’ are suitably
spliced as disclosed by Hallett.” Appeal Br. 8 (quoting Final Act. 7); see
Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant, “providing such an optical coupling”
would (1) “prevent the ‘camera [being] in optical communication with the
interior region and the optical fiber output end’” and (2) “prevent any related
inspection of the corresponding optical fiber output end.” Appeal Br. 8–9
(quoting claim 1); see Reply Br. 2. In addition, Appellant contends that the
proposed combination would “render the prior art unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
they rest on a misunderstanding of the proposed combination. The
Examiner does not propose applying Hallett’s teachings about splicing to
Kiani’s inspection apparatus to “make[] sure that the fiber optic connectors’
are suitably spliced.” See Final Act. 2–3, 6–7; Ans. 3–4, 11.
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

6
Rather, the Examiner correctly finds that Kiani discloses an apparatus
for inspecting an optical fiber connector. Final Act. 4, 10–11 (citing Kiani
¶¶ 2, 63, 71, Figs. 1, 8); Ans. 7–8; see Kiani ¶¶ 2–3, 63, 71, 93, Figs. 1–2,
8–9. Further, the Examiner correctly finds that Hallett discloses a
mechanism for (1) removably inserting an optical fiber connector into a tool
and (2) securely holding the optical fiber connector at a predetermined
location when inserted into the tool. Final Act. 2, 6 (citing Hallett ¶¶ 11, 38,
40, Figs. 1–6); Ans. 3–4, 11 (citing Hallett ¶¶ 1–6, 11, 38, 40, Figs. 1–6); see
Hallett ¶¶ 1–6, 11, 38, 40, Figs. 1–6. The Examiner proposes applying
Hallett’s teachings about a mechanism for removably inserting an optical
fiber connector into a tool to Kiani’s inspection apparatus. See Final
Act. 2–3, 6–7; Ans. 3–4, 11.
Specifically, Kiani explains that “contamination (e.g., oil, dirt, etc.)
and/or surface imperfections (e.g., scratches, protrusions, dents, etc.) at one
or more of the optical interfaces could result in malformed fiber optic
connections that provide improper light signal transfer (e.g., degradation or
loss of a light signal).” Kiani ¶ 2. Kiani also explains that optical
equipment manufacturers and users “strive to keep the optical interfaces of
their optical connectors clean and free of damage to maximize light energy
transfer and to minimize signal degradation of the light signals exchanged
between the optical interfaces.” Id. Similarly, Hallett discloses that a
challenge for optical interfaces “is making sure that the fiber optic
connectors do not significantly attenuate, reflect, or otherwise alter the
optical signals being transmitted.” Hallett ¶ 5.
The Examiner properly reasons that Hallett’s disclosure about
ensuring that “fiber optic connectors do not significantly attenuate, reflect,
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

7
or otherwise alter the optical signals being transmitted” would have
motivated an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify Kiani’s inspection
apparatus according to Hallett’s teachings about a mechanism for removably
inserting an optical fiber connector into a tool. See Final Act. 2–3, 6–7;
Ans. 3–4, 11.
Also, “the law does not require that the references be combined for
the reasons contemplated by the inventor.” See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309,
1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A.,
859 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “[T]he desire to enhance commercial
opportunities by improving a product or process is universal . . . .” DyStar
Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2006); see In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). An
“implicit motivation to combine” may result from a desire to make a product
or process “stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable,
or more efficient.” DyStar, 464 F.3d at 1368. Here, the Examiner
determines that combining Hallett’s and Wilson’s teachings with Kiani’s
teachings would improve Kiani’s inspection apparatus, e.g., by reducing
signal reflection and attenuation. See Final Act. 2–3, 6–7; Advisory Act. 1;
Ans. 3–4, 11.
Appellant contends that the Kiani-Hallett-Wilson combination
“appears to be based on impermissible hindsight.” Appeal Br. 9. We
disagree. The Examiner explains that the analysis “takes into account only
knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the
claimed invention was made.” Final Act. 2–3 (quoting In re McLaughlin,
443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971)); Ans. 12. In addition, an explicit
analysis “whether there was an apparent reason to combine” references
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

8
reduces “the risk of . . . patent examiners falling prey to hindsight bias.” See
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 421 (2007). Here, the
Examiner’s explicit analysis of the reasons to combine Kiani, Hallett, and
Wilson demonstrates that the Examiner did not fall prey to hindsight bias.
See Final Act. 3–4, 7 (citing Hallett ¶¶ 4–5; Wilson ¶ 4); Ans. 4, 11–12
(citing Hallett ¶¶ 1–6; Wilson ¶ 4).
Appellant asserts that the Examiner fails to “provide facts or rational
underpinnings to support the conclusory statements regarding obviousness.”
Appeal Br. 9. We disagree. As discussed above, the Examiner correctly
finds that Kiani discloses an apparatus for inspecting an optical fiber
connector. Final Act. 4, 10–11 (citing Kiani ¶¶ 2, 63, 71, Figs. 1, 8); Ans.
7–8; see Kiani ¶¶ 2–3, 63, 71, 93, Figs. 1–2, 8–9. As also discussed above,
the Examiner correctly finds that Hallett discloses a mechanism for
(1) removably inserting an optical fiber connector into a tool and
(2) securely holding the optical fiber connector at a predetermined location
when inserted into the tool. Final Act. 2, 6 (citing Hallett ¶¶ 11, 38, 40,
Figs. 1–6); Ans. 3–4, 11, 13 (citing Hallett ¶¶ 1–6, 11, 38, 40, Figs. 1–6); see
Hallett ¶¶ 1–6, 11, 38, 40, Figs. 1–6. According to the Examiner, combining
the teachings of the references would improve Kiani’s inspection apparatus,
e.g., by reducing signal reflection and attenuation. See Final Act. 2–3, 6–7;
Advisory Act. 1; Ans. 3–4, 11. Thus, the Examiner provides a “rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Ans. 13.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 15 for
obviousness based on Kiani, Hallett, and Wilson. In our view, the claimed
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

9
subject matter exemplifies the principle that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Thus,
we sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 15.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2–4, 16, AND 19–26
Claims 2–4 depend directly from claim 1, and claims 16 and 19–26
depend directly or indirectly from claim 15. Appellant does not argue
patentability separately for these dependent claims. See Appeal Br. 6–16;
Reply Br. 1–5. Thus, we sustain the § 103 rejection of these dependent
claims for the same reasons as claims 1 and 15. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5
Claim 5 depends indirectly from claim 1 and specifies that a “bright
field illumination source is spaced apart from the camera on the opposite
side of an optical axis of the fiber connector input and situated to direct a
bright field illumination along an optical axis that is at an oblique angle with
respect to an optical axis of the camera.” Appeal Br. 18–19 (Claims App.).
Appellant notes that the Examiner cites Kiani’s Figures 8 and 41 for
teaching claim 5’s subject matter. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 2; see Final
Act. 3, 7–8; Ans. 5, 13. Figures 8 and 41 are reproduced below:
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

10

Figure 8 is a top view of the various components of an inspection assembly
rotating through an angle around the point A to obtain an image of an optical
interface, i.e., optical interface 116. Kiani ¶¶ 21, 23, 93, Fig. 8. Figure 41 is
a side view of an interferometer configuration “suitable for use by the
inspection assembly.” Id. ¶¶ 56, 124, Fig. 41.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 because
monochromatic light source 452 in Figure 41 “emits light along an optical
axis that is perpendicular to an optical axis of a beam received by an aligned
sensor 458” corresponding to claim 5’s “camera.” Appeal Br. 10.
According to Appellant, the Figure 41 arrangement “directs the light to a
ferrule endface surface 116 (with beam splitter 454) along an optical axis
that is coaxial with the optical axis of the beam received by the sensor 458.”
Id. Appellant contends that “[n]either ‘perpendicular’ nor ‘coaxial’ is
‘oblique’” as required by claim 5. Id. Further, Appellant asserts that “the
mere panning of the dark field illuminator” in Figure 8 “is not the same as a
bright field illumination” and that the Examiner “fails to establish that there
would be any motivation to make Kiani’s dark field illuminator into a bright
field illuminator.” Reply Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

11
In response, the Examiner explains that “Kiani discloses rotate the
lens 206 and the dark field illuminator 204 that also could be a bright field
illuminator, hereinafter collectively referred to as the lens assembly 212,
about the Y-axis.” Ans. 13.
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Kiani teach
or suggest a bright field illumination source “situated to direct a bright field
illumination along an optical axis that is at an oblique angle with respect to
an optical axis of the camera” as required by claim 5. Figure 41 does not
depict the required “oblique angle.” Kiani ¶ 124, Fig. 41. In addition,
Figure 8 depicts a dark field illumination source (dark field illuminator 204),
not a bright field illumination source, rotating through an angle around the
point A. Id. ¶ 93, Fig. 8. As Appellant asserts, the Examiner “fails to
establish that there would be any motivation to make Kiani’s dark field
illuminator into a bright field illuminator.” See Ans. 13; Reply Br. 2.
Hence, we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 5.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6
Claim 6 depends indirectly from claim 1 and specifies that a “bright
field illumination source is adjacent to or adjoining the camera and situated
to direct a bright field illumination along an optical axis as emitted from the
bright field illumination source that is spaced apart and parallel to an optical
axis of the camera.” Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
Appellant notes that the Examiner cites Kiani’s Figure 13 for teaching
claim 6’s subject matter. Appeal Br. 11–12; see Final Act. 8; Ans. 5, 13–14.
Figure 13 is reproduced below:
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

12

Figure 13 is a top view of the various components of an inspection assembly
that “employs prisms to aim a sensor subassembly along the X-axis.” Kiani
¶¶ 28, 97, Fig. 13.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 because
the illumination from light source 202 in Figure 13 is (1) “directed
perpendicular from an optical axis of the imaging sensor 200” corresponding
to claim 6’s “camera” and (2) not “spaced apart and parallel to an optical
axis of the camera” as required by claim 6. Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellant
also argues that the “deformation of the light paths by the prism members
230 does not remedy the failure to disclose” claim 6’s subject matter. Id.
at 12.
In response, the Examiner explains that “it can be seen in Fig.13, on
the left side of prism member 230-B, the deformed light path is parallel but
apart away from the optical axis of image senor 200.” Ans. 14.
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Kiani teach
or suggest a bright field illumination source “situated to direct a bright field
illumination along an optical axis as emitted from the bright field
illumination source that is spaced apart and parallel to an optical axis of the
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

13
camera” as required by claim 6. Kiani’s Figures 14 and 15 are side views
of the inspection assembly depicted in Figure 13. Kiani ¶¶ 28–30, 97,
Figs. 13–15. Figures 14 and 15 show that the illumination from light source
202 strikes coaxial illumination beam splitter 208 and then becomes
coincident with, not parallel to, the optical axis of imaging sensor 200. Id.
¶¶ 92, 97–98, Figs. 14–15. After the coincident light paths for imaging
sensor 200 and light source 202 pass through lens assembly 212, prism
members 230-A and 230-B deform the coincident light paths in the same
way. Id. ¶ 97, Figs. 13–15. Because prism members 230-A and 230-B
deform the coincident light paths in the same way, prism members 230-A
and 230-B do not cause the coincident light paths to diverge, e.g., to become
parallel. Id. ¶¶ 97–98, Figs. 13–15. Hence, we do not sustain the § 103
rejection of claim 6.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8
Claim 8 depends directly from claim 1 and specifies that “the fiber
inspection housing includes a cleaning access port situated to allow cleaning
of the optical fiber output end situated at the predetermined location in the
interior region.” Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 because
(1) the Examiner maps the claimed “fiber inspection housing” to Kiani’s
card cage 72 and (2) card cage 72 “is separate from” the inspection system.
Appeal Br. 12. Appellant also argues that the narrow slot in card cage 72 for
cleaning an optical connector 78 “is the result of removing a circuit card to
provide access for the inspection system, and therefore only exists in the
absence of” the inspection system. Reply Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

14
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner correctly finds that Kiani discloses a cleaning system for the
optical connectors in card cage 72. Advisory Act. 2 (citing Kiani ¶ 65);
Ans. 14 (citing Kiani ¶¶ 2, 63–67, Fig. 1); see Kiani ¶¶ 2–3, 63–67, 71–72,
Figs. 1–2. In particular, Kiani explains that inspection system 50 preferably
“resides on a portable cart with a cleaning system so that the user can clean
the optical connectors 78 before and/or after inspection.” Kiani ¶ 65. In
addition, Kiani discloses shutters 112 that open to provide an access port
allowing cleaning and inspection. Id. ¶¶ 67, 71–72, Figs. 1–2; see id. ¶ 64.
Hence, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 8.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10
Claim 10 depends directly from claim 1 and further requires “a
diffuser situated to diffuse light from the bright field illumination source
so as to improve a camera image detail.” Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10
because “Wilson’s beam splitter is not a ‘diffuser’ and does not ‘diffuse light
from the bright field illumination source so as to improve a camera image
detail’” as required by claim 10. Appeal Br. 13; see Reply Br. 4. Appellant
also argues that even if Wilson’s beam splitter were a “diffuser,” the
Examiner “has not articulated any reasoning with rational underpinnings to
explain how a person of ordinary skill would combine Wilson’s alleged
‘diffuser’ in the manner claimed.” Appeal Br. 13.
In response, the Examiner explains that “the beam splitter of Wilson
would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as a
beam diffuser.” Ans. 14; see Advisory Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

15
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Wilson
teach or suggest a “diffuser” according to claim 10. Wilson discloses a
“beam splitter” for diverting a portion of incoming radiation. Wilson ¶ 17.
A “beam splitter” divides “a beam of radiation into two or more parts.”3
In contrast, a “diffuser” distributes “the light of a lamp evenly,” e.g., to
soften lighting.4 Hence, we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 10.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13
Claim 13 depends directly from claim 1 and specifies that “the camera
is part of a mobile device, and the camera input is situated to receive the
mobile device so that the mobile device camera is removably insertable into
the camera input so as to detect defects on the optical fiber output end.”
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13
because Wilson discloses “mobile devices” but “is completely silent about a
‘camera input [that] is situated to receive [a] mobile device’” as required by
claim 13. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant also argues that “nowhere does Wilson
teach its camera is ‘also a mobile device.’” Reply Br. 4.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner correctly finds that Wilson discloses (1) an apparatus for
cleaning and inspecting fiber optic end faces that includes a camera and
(2) implementing features of the apparatus with a mobile device. Final Act.
3–4, 8; Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 5, 15; see Wilson ¶¶ 4, 56–57, 60, 119, code
(57), Fig. 1. Specifically, Wilson explains that its disclosures “may be

3 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beam%20splitter.
4 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diffuser.
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

16
implemented on or through mobile devices,” such as cell phones and mobile
phones. Wilson ¶ 119. A person of ordinary skill “must be presumed to
know something” about the art “apart from what the references disclose.” In
re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962). “A person of ordinary skill is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S.
at 421. Here, those skilled in the art would have known that cell phones and
mobile phones as disclosed in Wilson typically include cameras. Hence, we
sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 13.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14
Claim 14 depends directly from claim 1 and specifies that “the fiber
inspection housing is portable so that an image of the optical fiber output
end with the camera is obtainable without requiring the mounting of the
fiber inspection housing to a surface.” Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14
because (1) the Examiner maps the claimed “fiber inspection housing” to
Kiani’s card cage 72 and (2) card cage 72 “is not ‘portable’ as recited in
claim 14.” Appeal Br. 14; see Reply Br. 4.
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner correctly finds that Kiani discloses a portable inspection
apparatus and that Hallett discloses a portable housing. Final Act. 3, 8
(citing Kiani ¶ 65, Fig. 2; Hallett Fig. 2); Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 5–6, 15
(citing Kiani ¶¶ 62, 65, Figs. 1–2; Hallett Fig. 2); see Kiani ¶¶ 62–66,
Figs. 1–2; Hallett ¶¶ 10–11, Figs. 2–4. “Combining the teachings of
references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”
In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (emphasis by the court).
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

17
Here, the combined disclosures in the references teach or suggest
claim 14’s subject matter. See Final Act. 3, 8; Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 5–6,
15. Hence, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 14.
The § 103 Rejection of Claim 7
Claim 7 depends directly from claim 1 and specifies that “the fiber
connector input is situated to receive and secure the optical fiber output end
at the predetermined location so that the optical fiber output end is rotatable
about an optical fiber axis.” Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). As noted above,
the § 103 rejection of claim 7 rests on Kiani, Hallett, Wilson, and Suzuki.
See Final Act. 9.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 because
Suzuki’s paragraph 12 “states that ‘[i]deally, the goal is to provide for a
floating connection of the ferrules within the sleeve, with minimal if any
ferrule rotation about the optical axis of each connector,’ ‘[i]f the ferrules are
allowed to rotate, or if excessive inclination of the ferrules is permitted, then
the optimum connection between the connectors being joined will likely not
be achieved,’ and ‘[t]he prevention of ferrule rotation around the optical axis
is also important for optimal tunability of the ferrules.’” Appeal Br. 14
(quoting Suzuki ¶ 12).
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner correctly finds that Suzuki discloses a ferrule for an “optical
fiber output end [that] is rotatable about an optical fiber axis” according to
claim 7. Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 15–16 (citing Suzuki ¶ 54, code (57),
Fig. 1); see Suzuki ¶¶ 51–54, code (57), Fig. 1. Specifically, Suzuki
explains that if the ferrule “is pushed far enough axially backward so as to
be disengaged from the limiters,” the ferrule “can be rotated,” e.g., “in 90°
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

18
increments to a total of four different positions.” Suzuki ¶ 54.
Consequently, the combined disclosures in the references teach or suggest
claim 7’s subject matter. See Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 15–16. Hence, we
sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 7.
The § 103 Rejection of Claims 9, 18, and 27
Claim 9 depends directly from claim 1 and further requires “a baffle
situated to block at least a portion of the light emitted by the dark field
illumination source that propagates at greater than the dark field illumination
angle or that propagates to surfaces other than the optical fiber output end.”
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). Claim 18 depends directly from claim 15 and
specifies a range for the angle of incidence of the dark field illumination
light. Id. at 21. Claim 27 depends directly from claim 15 and further
requires “varying the wavelength of the dark field illumination light or
bright field illumination light.” Id. at 22. As noted above, the § 103
rejection of claims 9, 18, and 27 rests on Kiani, Hallett, Wilson, and
Vodyanoy. Final Act. 9–10, 13.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 18,
and 27 because “Vodyanoy is non-analogous art.” Appeal Br. 16; see Reply
Br. 5. In particular, Appellant contends that Vodyanoy relates to “optical
microscopes that use ‘high-energy light from a phenomenon known as
non-resonant Raman scattering to illuminate a living biological specimen.’”
Appeal Br. 16 (quoting Vodyanoy ¶ 2). Appellant also contends that
Vodyanoy “would not logically commend itself to an inventor’s attention
in fiber endface inspection for various reasons, including at least because
Vodyanoy’s microscopes direct light through a specimen 200 with a
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

19
darkfield condenser 60, rather than at the biological specimen 200.” Id.
(emphasis by Appellant).
In response, the Examiner explains that Vodyanoy addresses the same
problem as claim 9’s “baffle,” in particular, blocking a portion of the dark
field light directed toward the item under inspection. Advisory Act. 1;
Ans. 16 (citing Spec. 9:5–6). Hence, the Examiner determines that
Vodyanoy is analogous art. Ans. 16–17; see Advisory Act. 1.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
we agree with the Examiner that Vodyanoy is analogous art. See Ans.
16–17. The scope of analogous art includes references “from the same field
of endeavor” as the claimed invention and references “reasonably pertinent”
to a problem facing the inventor. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2004); see In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). A “reasonably
pertinent” reference “logically would have commended itself to an
inventor’s attention in considering” a problem facing the inventor. See
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The Specification describes a baffle situated to “block[] a portion of
the dark field light so as to limit the incidence of light” directed toward the
item under inspection, and thus improve image quality. Spec. 9:5–8.
Consistent with the Specification, claim 9 recites “a baffle situated to block
at least a portion of the light emitted by the dark field illumination source.”
Appeal Br. 19.
Like the Specification and claim 9, Vodyanoy describes a baffle
situated to block a portion of the dark field light so as to limit the incidence
of light directed toward the item under inspection, and thus improve image
quality. Vodyanoy ¶¶ 80–81, Fig. 3; see Final Act. 9; Advisory Act. 1;
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

20
Ans. 6, 16. Specifically, Vodyanoy discloses dark field condenser 60 with
disk-shaped and centrally located annular stop 62. Vodyanoy ¶¶ 80–81,
Fig. 3. With annular stop 62, dark field condenser 60 blocks a portion of the
dark field light 300 so that “a hollow cylinder of light passes around the
edges of the annular stop 62 and strikes the condenser lens 64, which bends
the light toward the specimen 200.” Id. ¶ 81, Fig. 3; see id. ¶¶ 72, 80.
Accordingly, the dark field light 300 “exiting the condenser lens 64 is
shaped like a hollow cone” and “can be positioned and focused such that its
vertex strikes the specimen 200.” Id. ¶ 81, Fig. 3. As those skilled in the art
would have understood, suitably positioning and focusing the dark field light
300 exiting the condenser lens 64 would improve image quality. Also, like
claim 9’s “baffle,” dark field condenser 60 blocks a portion of the dark field
light 300 that would propagate to surfaces other than the specimen 200. Id.
¶ 81, Fig. 3; see Final Act. 9; Advisory Act. 1; Ans. 6.
Because Vodyanoy addresses the same problem as claim 9’s “baffle,”
Vodyanoy “logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s
attention in considering” a problem facing the inventor. See Clay, 966 F.2d
at 659. Thus, Vodyanoy is analogous art. See Advisory Act. 1; Ans. 16–17.
Hence, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 9, 18, and 27.
The § 103 Rejection of Claims 11 and 12
Claims 11 and 12 depend directly from claim 1. Appellant does not
argue patentability separately for these dependent claims. See Appeal Br.
6–16; Reply Br. 1–5. Thus, we sustain the § 103 rejection of these
dependent claims for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

21
The § 103 Rejection of Claim 17
Claim 17 depends directly from claim 15 and further requires
“securing the optical fiber connector in the fiber inspection housing against
axial and lateral translation with respect to the optical fiber axis; and rotating
the optical fiber connector.” Appeal Br. 20–21 (Claims App.). As noted
above, the § 103 rejection of claim 17 rests on Kiani, Hallett, Wilson, and
Castonguay. See Final Act. 13.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17
because Castonguay’s activation mechanism “does not rotate an optical fiber
connector but instead uses a cam” to bias splice parts together to secure
optical fibers “in relation to each other for splicing.” Appeal Br. 15.
According to Appellant, “Castonguay is silent about ‘securing the optical
fiber connector in the fiber inspection housing against axial and lateral
translation with respect to the optical fiber axis; and rotating the optical fiber
connector,’ as recited in claim 17.” Id.
In response, the Examiner explains that Castonguay discloses that
“a fiber optical connector is received and secured axially during being
terminated by a fiber optical cable, and preventing lateral translation during
lateral connector removal.” Ans. 16 (citing Castonguay ¶¶ 7, 11, 84,
Fig. 28).
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of
Castonguay teach or suggest securing an optical fiber connector “against
axial and lateral translation” and “rotating the optical fiber connector” as
required by claim 17. Although the Examiner cites portions of Castonguay
that teach or suggest securing an optical fiber connector “against axial and
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

22
lateral translation,” the cited portions do not teach or suggest “rotating the
optical fiber connector.” See Ans. 16 (citing Castonguay ¶¶ 7, 11, 84,
Fig. 28); Castonguay ¶¶ 7, 11, 84, Fig. 28. Hence, we do not sustain the
§ 103 rejection of claim 17.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 7–9, 11–16,
and 18–27.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5, 6, 10, and 17.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8, 10,
13–16,
19–26
103 Kiani, Hallett, Wilson
1–4, 8,
13–16,
19–26
5, 6, 10
7 103 Kiani, Hallett, Wilson, Suzuki 7
9, 18, 27 103 Kiani, Hallett, Wilson, Vodyanoy 9, 18, 27
11, 12 103 Kiani, Hallett, Wilson, Tong 11, 12
17 103 Kiani, Hallett, Wilson, Castonguay 17
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 7–9,
11–16,
18–27
5, 6, 10, 17
Appeal 2019-004019
Application 15/143,314

23
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)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED IN PART