Ex Parte Bergano et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2012

11537995 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte NEAL S. BERGANO, CLEO D. ANDERSON, WILLIAM W. PATTERSON, and RICHARD L. MAYBACH _____________ Appeal 2010-000716 Application 11/537,995 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-000716 Application 11/537,995 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method and system for determining an approximate location of a polarization anomaly. Spec. 2-3. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A polarization anomaly locator system for an optical communication network, said system comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit a probe signal on a network having first and second optical transmission paths and a loop-back path, said first and second optical transmission paths supporting communication of optical signals in opposite directions on said network, said loop-back path coupling at least a portion of said probe signal from said first transmission path to said second transmission path as a returned probe signal; said transmitter having a modulation section optically communicating with said probe signal source, said modulation section configured to impart a depth of modulation on said probe signal at a particular frequency; and a receiver coupled to said second transmission path and configured to receive said returned probe signal and to provide an output indicating an approximate position along said first transmission path of a polarization anomaly in response to said returned probe signal, said polarization anomaly comprising polarization dependent loss or polarization mode dispersion. REFERENCES Sentsui US 5,202,746 Apr. 13, 1993 Cai US 6,330,383 B1 Dec. 11, 2001 Appeal 2010-000716 Application 11/537,995 3 Holland US 6,396,575 B1 May 28, 2002 Ito US 6,650,846 B1 Nov. 18, 2003 Bergano US 7,187,860 B2 Mar. 6, 2007 (filed Apr. 5, 2002) REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sentsui and Holland. Ans. 3-5. Claims 2-8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sentsui, Holland, and Ito. Ans. 5-7. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sentsui, Holland, and Cai. Ans. 7-8. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Sentsui and Holland teaches or suggests providing an output indicating an approximate position along said first transmission path of a polarization anomaly in response to said returned probe signal, said polarization anomaly comprising polarization dependent loss or polarization mode dispersion? ANALYSIS We select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1 and 11-13 as Appellants have not argued any of the other claims with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 1 recites “a receiver…to provide an output indicating an approximate position along said first transmission path of a polarization anomaly in response to said returned Appeal 2010-000716 Application 11/537,995 4 probe signal, said polarization anomaly comprising polarization dependent loss or polarization mode dispersion.” The Examiner finds that it is the combination of Sentsui and Holland that discloses this limitation. Ans. 4-5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Holland discloses determining a polarization anomaly by polarization dependent loss or polarization mode dispersion and approximating the position of the anomaly. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner finds that Appellants’ first argument that Sentsui does not disclose the disputed limitation (App. Br. 13) is misplaced since, as indicated above, Holland is used to teach the limitation. We agree with the Examiner. Appellants additionally argue that Holland does not disclose the disputed limitation either since Holland teaches polarization markers, at fixed locations, that only indicate attenuation anomalies using optical time- domain reflectometry (OTDR). App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 6. Since these fixed locations are known locations, Appellants argue that no one would be “motivated to use Holland to locate the position of the ‘polarization markers.’” Reply Br. 6. We disagree. Holland teaches that polarization markers are deployed after a coupler and before the distribution fibers. Col. 4, ll. 26-28. In order to determine transmission loss in each branch, a unique polarization dependent loss (PDL) is introduced into each branch. Ans. 13 and Col. 4, ll. 29-30. Varying the polarization allows for transmission losses and faults to be located along the length of the fiber. Col. 4, ll. 30-34; col. 12, ll. 53-64; and Fig. 6. Thus, the Examiner is correct that, even though the location of the polarization markers is known, the markers still provide an approximate location of the polarization anomaly as required by the claim. Ans. 13. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11-13. Appeal 2010-000716 Application 11/537,995 5 Regarding claims 2-10, 14, and 15 Appellants make the same arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12. App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 7. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-10, 14, and 15 for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Sentsui and Holland teaches or suggests providing an output indicating an approximate position along said first transmission path of a polarization anomaly in response to said returned probe signal, said polarization anomaly comprising polarization dependent loss or polarization mode dispersion. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-15 is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED msc