CABLE TELEVISION LABORATORIES, INC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 16, 2022

2021000175 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022)

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. 16/238,415 01/02/2019 Luis Alberto Campos 60968CONT1 8218 118666 7590 02/16/2022 Armstrong Teasdale LLP (Cable Television Labs) 7700 Forsyth Blvd. Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 EXAMINER BELLO, AGUSTIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2637 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2022 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com uspatents@armstrongteasdale.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LUIS ALBERTO CAMPOS and ZHENSHENG JIA ____________ Appeal 2021-000175 Application 16/238,415 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-30. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-000175 Application 16/238,415 2 THE INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention relates “generally to fiber communication networks, and more particularly, to optical access networks utilizing wavelength division multiplexing.” Spec. ¶ 2.2 Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An optical network communication system, comprising: an optical hub including an intelligent configuration unit configured to monitor and multiplex at least two different optical signals into a single multiplexed heterogeneous signal; an optical distribution center configured to individually separate the at least two different optical signals from the multiplexed heterogeneous signal; at least one fiber segment connecting the optical hub and the optical distribution center, the at least one fiber segment configured to receive the multiplexed heterogeneous signal from the optical hub and distribute the multiplexed heterogeneous signal to the optical distribution center; and at least two end users, each including a downstream receiver configured to receive one of the respective separated optical signals from the optical distribution center. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Name Reference Date Schemmann et al. (“Schemmann”) US 2015/0304052 A1 Oct. 22, 2015 2 We refer to the Specification filed Apr. 30, 2019 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed Aug. 8, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Apr. 7, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed July 24, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 28, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2021-000175 Application 16/238,415 3 REJECTION Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Schemmann. Final Act. 2. ANALYSIS Claims 1-14 and 20-30 Claim 1 recites (emphases added) “monitor[ing] and multiplex[ing] at least two different optical signals into a single multiplexed heterogeneous signal” and “individually separat[ing] the at least two different optical signals from the multiplexed heterogeneous signal.” Claim 20 similarly recites (emphasis added) “separating a downstream heterogeneous optical signal . . . into a plurality of downstream homogeneous optical signals.” The Examiner finds that Schemmann describes one fiber segment that receives and distributes a multiplexed heterogeneous signal. Final Act. 2 (citing Schemmann, Figs. 2, 8, ¶ 23). Specifically, the Examiner finds that “Schemmann takes two different optical signals, e.g. the optical signal produced by an LED . . . and the optical signal received by an intelligent configuration unit . . . via an input fiber (e.g. the input to the leftmost ‘WDM’…), and multiplexes them . . . into a single multiplexed heterogeneous signal.” Ans. 13 (citing Fig. 8). According to the Examiner, the “single multiplexed signal (e.g. the input to reference numeral 803 in Figure 8) is clearly heterogeneous in that it is diverse in character or content by virtue of the combination of two distinct signals for transmission on a single communication channel.” Id. at 14. Appeal 2021-000175 Application 16/238,415 4 Appellant argues that “Schemmann describes only one type of optical carrier, namely, a frequency-shift keying (FSK) signal” that is not “multiplexed with a different type of optical carrier to create a multiplexed heterogeneous signal, as required by pending claim 1.” Appeal Br. 5. Specifically, Appellant argues that “Schemmann clearly discloses that all of the respective 32 signals . . . are all of the same type” and “even when aggregated from a single port (e.g., through a WDM), the resulting aggregated signal would necessarily be ‘homogeneous.’” Id. at 6; see also Reply Br. 4-5. Appellant argues that the claimed “‘multiplexed heterogeneous signal’ necessarily requires the combination or aggregation of at least two separate signals into the single multiplexed signal, as well as at least two different types of optical carriers to render the multiplexed signal heterogeneous.” Id. at 5-6; see also Reply Br. 4. We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument as the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how Schemmann describes a multiplexed heterogeneous signal as claimed. Schemmann explains that the optical network unit (ONU) “can configure itself based on various content in the downstream signal,” such as “an ONU with a tone input [that] includes an ONU that can listen for tones or frequency-shift keying (FSK) signals to determine at what wavelength it should operate.” Schemmann ¶ 55. In an example, Schemmann describes that “tone or FSK signals can be sent to an LED [] that provides light to the downstream direction,” and also “amplify[ing] downstream signals and the LED light.” Id. ¶¶ 68-69. In other words, the sections of Schemmann cited by the Examiner and on the record before us do not teach a multiplexed heterogeneous signal. Appeal 2021-000175 Application 16/238,415 5 Instead, Schemmann describes that a downstream signal may contain various content, such as tones or FSK signals. Schemmann also describes that the tones or FSK signals can be sent to an LED to provide LED light from the tones or FSK signals. However, the inclusion of various content in a downstream signal, and the example of tones or FSK signals, or tones or FSK signals that are sent to an LED to provide LED light, merely teaches that different signals may be different types (i.e., tones or FSK signals, or LED light from tones or FSK signals) but not that a multiplexed signal is heterogeneous. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s finding that Schemmann describes disputed limitations is in error because it is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (The Examiner’s burden of proving non- patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence.); see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.”). Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant regarding claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, we are constrained on the record before us to reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of independent claim 1, as well as claim 20 with a similar limitation, and dependent claims 2-14 and 21-30. Appeal 2021-000175 Application 16/238,415 6 Claims 15-19 Claim 15 recites (emphasis added) a “method of distributing heterogeneous wavelength signals over a fiber segment of an optical network, comprising . . . analyzing one or more characteristics of the fiber segment.” The Examiner finds that Schemmann’s port being analyzed describes that “the fiber segment over which signals [that] are distributed to ONUs will be mapped” is being analyzed. Ans. 15 (citing Schemmann ¶¶ 55, 56, 63); see Final Act. 6. Appellant argues that Schemmann’s decoding “signaling information about the port of an active 1xN splitter to which it is connected” does not describe “characteristics of the fiber” as claimed. Appeal Br. 8. Specifically, Appellant argues that Schemmann describes “that the active splitter detects the receiving port of that active splitter, and then maps an identification code of a signal received from the ONUs to the ports of the active splitter,” but not “that a characteristic of the fiber segment is analyzed, and then used to assign the wavelength spectrum.” Reply Br. 6. We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument as the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how Schemmann describes analyzing the fiber segment as claimed. Schemmann discloses that “an ONU that can listen for tones or frequency-shift keying (FSK) signals to determine at what wavelength it should operate.” Schemmann ¶ 55. In an example, Schemmann discloses “inject[ing] forward signaling into the splitter to tag port information to the port outputs,” and the ONUs “receiving signals from the splitter over Appeal 2021-000175 Application 16/238,415 7 respective fibers 513, 514, read[ing] this information and set[ting] wavelengths according to their assigned port.” Id. ¶ 63. In other words, the sections of Schemmann cited by the Examiner and on the record before us do not teach analyzing characteristics of the fiber segment. Instead, Schemmann describes analyzing parameters of the signal (i.e., listening for tone or FSK signals) and analyzing port information. However, characteristics and parameters of the signal and ports do not describe characteristics of the fiber segment. Accordingly, we are constrained on the record before us to reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of independent claim 15, and dependent claims 16-19. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-30. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-30 102 Schemmann 1-30 REVERSED