Ex Parte Boduch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2012

11045674 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

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.
11/045,674 01/28/2005 Mark E. Boduch 2376.2514-001 4103
57690 7590 09/27/2012
HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C.
530 VIRGINIA ROAD
P.O. BOX 9133
CONCORD, MA 01742-9133
EXAMINER
LIU, LI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte MARK E. BODUCH and PREM C. TIRILOK

___________

Appeal 2010-000788
Application 11/045,674
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ERIC B. CHEN, and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000788
Application 11/045,674

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-11, 13-22, and 24-47. Claims 12 and 23 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to protecting optical signals within a
wavelength division multiplexed (WDM) environment utilizing a single
protection wavelength translator device to protect up to N wavelengths and
N+1 wavelength translator devices in order to provide protected transport for
N wavelengths. (Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 28 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. An optical communications device, comprising:
multiple optical to electrical (O/E) converters configured to
receive and convert optical client signals to electrical client signals;
multiple electrical to optical (E/O) line converters to convert the
electrical client signals into associated optical line signals λ1 - λN;
an electrical routing element to route the electrical client
signals from the O/E converters to the E/O converters; and
a protection E/O line converter connected to the routing
element to receive and convert the electrical client signals to optical
line signals, the protection E/O converter being configured to replace
a selected one of at least two of the multiple E/O line converters.

28. A method for protecting optical signals within a
wavelength division multiplexed (WDM) environment, comprising:
providing client signals;
Appeal 2010-000788
Application 11/045,674

3
routing the client signals through a P-for-N line protection
group, where N equals the number of client signals and P does not
equal N; wherein the P-for-N line protection group includes N optical
to electrical (O/E) client converters and N electrical to optical (E/O)
line converters;
converting the client signals to colored optical line signals;
multiplexing the colored optical line signals to produce WDM
optical signals; and
detecting failures within the WDM environment, wherein
routing includes rerouting multiple client signals through a common
protection electrical to optical (E/O) converter in the P-for-N line
protection group based upon failure detection.

Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, and 37 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Kobayashi (U.S.
Patent No. 6,172,782 B1).
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Kobayashi and Kubo (European Patent Application No. EP 1054524
A2).
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Kobayashi, Gerstel (Oman Gerstel & Rajiv Ramaswami, Optical Layer
Survivability – An Implementation Perspective, 18 IEEE J. ON SELECTED
AREAS IN COMM. 1885-99 (2000)), and Frascolla (U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2003/0161629 A1).
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Kobayashi and Shimano (Japanese Patent Office Publication No. 11-
068656).
Claims 18, 21, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Kobayashi and Frascolla.
Appeal 2010-000788
Application 11/045,674

4
Claims 6, 9-11, 13-15, 17, 19, 24, 27, 31, 33, 36, 39-44, and 46 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Kobayashi and
Gerstel.
Claims 45 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Kobayashi, Gerstel, and Shimano.
Claims 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Kobayashi, Kubo, Henmi (U.S. Patent No. 6,137,603), Egnell (U.S.
Patent No. 6,590,681 B1), and Jung (U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2005/0276603 A1).

ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 20-25) that
Kobayashi would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “an electrical routing element to route the electrical
client signals from the O/E converters to the E/O converters.”
The Examiner acknowledged that Figure 7 of Kobayashi does not
disclose the limitation “multiple optical to electrical (O/E) converters
configured to receive and convert optical client signals to electrical client
signals” (Ans. 7) and, therefore, relied upon Figure 3 of Kobayashi for
teaching optical/electrical converters (O/E) 11 (Ans. 7, 36-41). The
Examiner concluded that “it [would have been] obvious to one skilled in the
art that the O/E converter can be used in the system of Kobayashi so that the
optical signal can be converted into electrical and further processed by the
E/O converter.” (Ans. 7.) The Examiner further found that such a
combination of Figures 3 and 7 teaches “an electrical routing element to
Appeal 2010-000788
Application 11/045,674

5
route the electrical client signals from the O/E converters to the E/O
converters.” (Ans. 7.) We agree with the Examiner.
Kobayashi relates to “an output port switching device in [an] N-WDM
system which is provided with a switching backup output port having a laser
diode serving as a backup light source.” (Col. 1, ll. 9-12.) Figure 7 of
Kobayashi illustrates a prior art N-channel Wavelength Division
Multiplexing (N-WDM) system that includes a transmission device 5 and a
reception device 6. (Col. 4, ll. 3-7.) Kobayashi explains that an input into
each port of the transmission device 5 is branched, such that one input is
input to an electrical/optical (E/O) 12 converter and that the other input is
input to a change-over switch 28 (i.e., the claimed “electrical routing
element”). (Col. 2, ll. 25-28.) Kobayashi also explains that “when . . .
trouble occurs in an i-th port of the transmission device 5 and transmission
of a signal of wavelength λi is stopped, the change-over switch 28 selects the
signal from the i-th port and transmits it to the backup E/O 12” (i.e., the
claimed “protection E/O line converter”). (Col. 2, ll. 28-32.)
Figure 3 of Kobayashi illustrates a prior art n-wave WDM device with
no transmission line for switching (col. 3, ll. 57-59) that includes an
optical/electrical converter (O/E) 11 (i.e., the claimed “optical to electrical
(O/E) converters”) (col. 1, ll. 25-30). Kobayashi explains that such an n-
wave WDM device of Figure 3 includes “plural different wavelengths in the
same wavelength band . . . subjected to wavelength division multiplexing
[that] needs laser diodes whose number is equal to at least the number of the
wavelengths to be multiplexed.” (Col. 1, ll. 61-65.) As a result, Figure 7 of
Kobayashi provides a solution to the n-wave WDM device of Figure 3 by
Appeal 2010-000788
Application 11/045,674

6
including a backup E/O having a different wavelength λN from the
wavelengths of the other optical signals. (Col. 2, ll. 15-18.)
The combination of Figures 3 and 7 of Kobayashi is nothing more
than incorporating the known optical/electrical converter (O/E) 11 from the
transmission device 4 of Figure 3 of with the known electrical/optical
converter (E/O) 12 from the transmission device 5 of Figure 7, to yield
predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7) that it would have
been obvious to combine Figures 3 and 7 of Kobayashi.
Because Kobayashi explains that “the input of each port of the
transmission device 5 is branched, and one input is directly input to E/O 12
while the other input is input to a change-over switch 28” (col. 2, ll. 25-28),
the combination of Figures 3 and 7 would result in “an electrical routing
element to route the electrical client signals from the O/E converters to the
E/O converters,” as recited in claim 1.
Appellants argue that “Kobayashi clearly does not teach that a portion
of the structure of Kobayashi’s relay could or should be used in either
Kobayashi’s transmission device 5 or Kobayashi’s reception device 6.”
(Br. 23.) However, the Examiner cited to Figure 3 of Kobayashi for the
optical/electrical converter (O/E) 11 from transmission device 4, rather than
the reproducing relay 2 of Figure 4 and the reception device 6 of Figure 7.
(Ans. 7.)
Appellants also argue that “no reasonable reading of Kobayashi would
support the assertion that the changeover switch 28 and couplers constitute a
routing element that routes the electrical client signals from the O/E
converters to the E/O converters as recited in Claim 1.” (Br. 24.) Similarly,
Appeal 2010-000788
Application 11/045,674

7
Appellants argue that “[s]ince Kobayashi does not describe a device that
includes both E/O and O/E converters and a routing element therebetween,
Kobayashi also does not describe that the protection E/O line converter is
connected to the same routing element.” (Br. 25.) As discussed previously,
the combination of Figures 3 and 7 would result in “an electrical routing
element to route the electrical client signals from the O/E converters to the
E/O converters,” as recited in claim 1, because Kobayashi explains that the
input of each port of the transmission device 5 of Figure 7 (i.e., from the
O/E 11 of Figure 3) is branched to both the input to E/O 12 and the change-
over switch 28 (col. 2, ll. 25-28).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Kobayashi would have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “an
electrical routing element to route the electrical client signals from the O/E
converters to the E/O converters.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2, 5, 7, and 8 depend from claim 1, and Appellants
have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 1.
Independent claim 20 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to claim 20 or claims 22, 25,
and 26, which depend from clam 20. We sustain the rejection of claim 20,
as well as claims 22, 25, and 26, for the same reasons discussed with respect
to claim 1.
Appeal 2010-000788
Application 11/045,674

8
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 28-29) that
Kobayashi would not have rendered obvious independent claim 28, which
includes the limitation “detecting failures within the WDM environment.”
The Examiner found that the branching of each input port and the
change-over switch 28 of Kobayashi corresponds to “detecting failures
within the WDM environment” (Ans. 11; Kobayashi, col. 2, ll. 24-45). We
agree with the Examiner.
In describing Figure 7, Kobayashi explains that the “optical signal . . .
converted is subjected to the wavelength division multiplexing together with
the other normal signals by the multiplexer 13, and then transmitted to the
transmission line.” (Col. 2, ll. 34-37) Kobayashi also explains that “when
. . . trouble occurs in an i-th port of the transmission device 5 and
transmission of a signal of wavelength λi is stopped, the change-over
switch 28 selects the signal from the i-th port and transmits it to the backup
E/O 12.” (Col. 2, ll. 28-32) Thus, Kobayashi teaches “detecting failures
within the WDM environment.”
Appellants argue that “Kobayashi does not describe or suggest
detecting failures after the signals have been subjected to Wavelength
Division Multiplexing” because “Kobayashi describes detecting a signal
failure prior to WDM occurring.” (Br. 28.) However, this argument is not
commensurate in scope with claim 28 because the claim does not require
detecting a signal failure prior to wavelength division multiplexing. The
claim language “within the WDM environment” is broad enough to
encompass the N-WDM system of Kobayashi.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 29, 32, 34, 35, and 37 depend from claim 28,
Appeal 2010-000788
Application 11/045,674

9
and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments
with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 29, 32, 34, 35, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons
discussed with respect to independent claim 28.
We are further unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 30-33) that
the combination of Kobayashi and Gerstel would not have rendered obvious
dependent claim 6, which includes the limitation “wherein the E/O line
converters, routing element and protect E/O line converter form a node
joined in a ring application to other nodes.”
The Examiner acknowledged that Kobayashi does not disclose the
limitation “wherein the E/O line converters, routing element and protect E/O
line converter form a node joined in a ring application to other nodes”
(Ans. 17-18) and therefore, relied upon Figures 5 and 6 of Gerstel for
teaching optical layer protection rings (Ans. 18; Gerstel, pp. 1893-94). The
Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious . . . to use the protect
scheme to the ring network as taught by Gerstel et al[.] so that the signals
transmitted in the ring network can be protected too.” (Ans. 18.) We agree
with the Examiner.
As discussed previously, Kobayashi relates to “an output port
switching device in [an] N-WDM system which is provided with a switching
backup output port having a laser diode serving as a backup light source.”
(Col. 1, ll. 9-12.)
Gerstel relates to “several aspects of optical layer protection
techniques from an implementation perspective.” (Abstract.) Figure 5 of
Gerstel illustrates “[f]lexing bus implementation of dedicated protection
Appeal 2010-000788
Application 11/045,674

10
rings” (p. 1893) and Figure 6 of Gerstel illustrates an “[o]ptical 4 fiber
shared line protection ring implementation” (p. 1894).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating the protection ring architecture of Gerstel for optical systems
with the N-WDM system of Kobayashi, would improve Kobayashi by
providing protection. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 18) that it would have been obvious to incorporate the
protection ring architecture of Gerstel with the N-WDM system of
Kobayashi.
Appellants argue that “Gerstel is describing an optical system that is
not concerned with converting electrical signals to optical signals or vice
versa” and “[t]here is no reason for one skilled in the art to modify the
transponder as taught by Gerstel to include an E/O converter, since the
signal received by the transponder is an optical signal and the signal
transmitted from the transponder is also an optical signal.” (Br. 31.)
However, the Examiner cited to Gerstel for teaching the limitation “a node
joined in a ring application to other nodes” (Ans. 17-18) and cited to
Kobayashi for teaching optical to electrical (O/E) converters and electrical to
optical (E/O) line converters (Ans. 7).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kobayashi
and Gerstel would have rendered obvious dependent claim 6, which includes
the limitation “wherein the E/O line converters, routing element and protect
E/O line converter form a node joined in a ring application to other nodes.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2010-000788
Application 11/045,674

11
Independent claim 39 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to dependent claim 6, and Appellants have not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to claim 39 or claims 40-44,
which depend from claim 39. We sustain the rejection of claim 39, as well
as claims 40-44, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 6.
Appellants do not present any substantive arguments with respect to
the rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 9-11, 13-19, 21, 24, 27, 30, 31, 33,
36, 38, and 45-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the various combinations of
Kobayashi, Kubo, Gerstel, Frascolla, Shimano, Henmi, Egnell, and Jung.
(Br. 29, 33-34.) Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 3, 4, 9-11,
13-19, 21, 24, 27, 30, 31, 33, 36, 38, and 45-47.

DECISION
The Examiner’ decision to reject claims 1-11, 13-22, and 24-47 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

kis