OFS Fitel, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 24, 2020

2019006089 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 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.
15/678,719 08/16/2017 Tristan Kremp Geisler 6-4-51 CON 8210
57040 7590 06/24/2020
OFS Fltel, LLC
(FORMERLY FURUKAWA ELECTRIC NORTH AMERICA, INC.)
2000 NORTHEAST EXPRESSWAY
NORCROSS, GA 30071
EXAMINER
LEPISTO, RYAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2020 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):
Arochester@ofsoptics.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TRISTAN KREMP, PAUL S. WESTBROOK, and
TOMMY GEISLER

Appeal 2019-006089
Application 15/678,719
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
OFS Fitel, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006089
Application 15/678,719

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is generally directed to a single-mode optical
fiber with a modified index caused by applying a spatial pattern that creates
a refractive index perturbation. The single-mode optical fiber comprises a
perturbed segment having an index perturbation that causes backscattering
that is greater than Rayleigh scattering. (Spec.¶ 14.) Independent claim 1 is
representative of the appealed subject matter and is reproduced below:
1. A single-mode optical fiber having a modified index
caused by applying a spatial pattern that creates a refractive index
perturbation, the single-mode optical fiber comprising:
a perturbed segment having an index perturbation that
causes backscattering that is more than three (3) decibels (dB)
above Rayleigh scattering; and
a mode effective area that is no smaller than that of a
standard single-mode fiber, the standard single-mode fiber being
a G.652-compliant optical fiber.
Appeal Br. 13, Claims Appendix.
The following rejection of claims 1–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Johnston (US 9,982,531 B2; May 29, 2018) is presented
for our review. 2

OPINION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–7 as obvious over Johnston.

2 The complete statement of the rejection on appeal appears in the Final
Office Action. (Final Act. 4–5).
Appeal 2019-006089
Application 15/678,719

3
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for
substantially the same reasons provided by the Examiner. We limit our
discussion to independent claim 1 as argued by Appellant. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 2–7 stand or fall with independent claim 1. We
add the following for emphasis.
Appellant argues the Examiner has mischaracterized the teachings of
Johnston in alleging that “Johnston teaches a high backscattering single-
mode optical fiber.” (Appeal Br. 7–8.) Appellant argues Johnston teaches
away from the use of a single mode optical fiber as required by the claimed
invention and Johnston expressly discusses known disadvantages of using
single-mode optical fibers in vertical seismic profiling (VSP). (Appeal Br.
9–11.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Although it is recognized that Johnston discusses the disadvantages of
utilizing standard single-mode fibers for VSP, the Johnston invention is
directed to providing three or more reflectors in the fiber, or a continuous
distribution of scatter sites with reflectivity varying with position, to produce
an improved strain response. (Johnston, col. 4, ll. 62–65.) Appellant has not
directed us to portions of Johnston that establish that its described novel
invention is a multi-mode fiber. Appellant has not directed us to portions of
Johnston that establish that its described novel invention is not a modified
single-mode fiber. Appellant has not explained that the addition of
reflectors to the fiber creates a fiber that is not a single-mode fiber.
For the foregoing reasons and those presented by the Examiner, we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness determination.
Appeal 2019-006089
Application 15/678,719

4

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7 103 Johnston 1–7

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