Ex Parte Chen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2017

13422533 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2017)

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.
13/422,533 03/16/2012 Long Chen 809016-US-NP 2599
47394 7590 08/15/2017
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./ALCATEL-LUCENT
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
EXAMINER
ABRAHAM, SAMANTHA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2017 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LONG CHEN
Appeal 2015-003645
Application 13/422,5331
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellant, “[t]he real party in interest in this appeal is
Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. and its parent company Alcatel Lucent.” Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-003645
Application 13/422,533
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An optical device, comprising:
an optical beam sweeper, including:
a multi-wavelength laser source,
an optical power splitter having an optical input
optically coupled to the multi-wavelength laser source, the
optical power splitter having N optical outputs, each optical
output connected, by a corresponding optical pathway of a
parallel array, to a common optical output surface of the optical
beam sweeper; and
wherein each of the corresponding N parallel optical
pathways connecting the optical input to the common optical
output surface has a different optical path length than the other
parallel optical pathways, the different optical path lengths
differing in a wavelength-dependent way.
Rejections
The Examiner maintains, and the Appellant appeals, the following
rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
I. Claims 1, 2, 13—15, 18, and 20 as unpatentable over Ball
(US 2013/0088872 Al, published Apr. 11, 2013), Heidrich
(US 4,315,746, issued Feb. 16, 1982), and Storz et al.
(US 7,133,130 B2, issued Nov. 7, 2006; hereinafter “Storz”);
II. Claim 3 as unpatentable over Ball, Heidrich, Storz, and Dantus
et al. (US 8,208,504 B2, issued June 26, 2012; hereinafter
“Dantus”);
2
Appeal 2015-003645
Application 13/422,533
III. Claims 4, 5, 7,and 9 as unpatentable over Ball, Heidrich, Storz,
and Liu et al. (US 7,369,778 B2, issued May 6, 2008;
hereinafter “Liu”);
IV. Claim 6 as unpatentable over Ball, Heidrich, Storz, Liu, and
Fujimori et al. (US 2008/0107372 Al, published May 8, 2008;
hereinafter “Fujimori”);
V. Claim 8 as unpatentable over Ball, Heidrich, Storz, and Kami et
al. (US 8,494,016 B2, issued July 23, 2013; hereinafter
“Kami”);
VI. Claim 10 as unpatentable over Ball, Heidrich, Storz, and
Jennings et al. (US 7,792,431 B2, issued Sept. 7, 2010;
hereinafter “Jennings”);
VII. Claims 11 and 12 as unpatentable over Ball, Heidrich, Storz,
and MacKenzie et al. (US 6,833,540 B2 issued Dec. 21, 2004;
hereinafter “MacKenzie”);
VIII. Claims 16 and 17 as unpatentable over Ball, Heidrich, Storz,
and Hayashi et al. (US 7,362,486 B2, issued Apr. 22, 2008;
hereinafter “Hayashi”); and
IX. Claims 19 and 21 as unpatentable over Ball, Heidrich, Storz,
and Good (US 2010/0258632 Al, published Oct. 14, 2010).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies primarily on Heidrich to teach an “optical power
splitter having N optical outputs, each optical output connected, by a
corresponding optical pathway of a parallel array, to a common optical
3
Appeal 2015-003645
Application 13/422,533
output surface of the optical beam sweeper,” as recited in independent
claims 1 and 15.2 See Final Act. 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds:
Ball explicitly lacks, but Heidrich teaches an optical
system having N signal outputs [fig 1 (signal output 56 is
connected to inputs 58o-k, thus signals 58o-k are further outputs
that result from output 56; signals 58o-k are connected to output
signals 62o-k, which are paired until only a single signal output
(105) is obtained)], each optical output connected by a
corresponding optical pathway of a parallel array to a common
optical output [fig 1]; and wherein each of the corresponding N
parallel optical pathways connecting the optical input to the
common optical output [fig 1],
Id. (emphases and brackets in original).
However, the Examiner’s finding fails to explain adequately — and it
is not otherwise apparent — how Heidrich’s Figure 1 teaches N outputs,
each connected by a corresponding pathway of a parallel array to a common
output surface, where each pathway connects the input to the common
output. See Appeal Br. 9—12. As pointed out by the Appellant, Heidrich’s
Figure 1 “depicts a schematic diagram of an electrical circuit showing the
functional connections between circuit components used for generating
simulations of echoes of synthetic radar images and adding together
logarithmic forms of synthetic radar images.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis
omitted); see Appeal Br. 10-11, Heidrich, col. 1,11. 60-62. As such, the
Examiner cannot rely upon Heidrich’s Figure 1 to disclose a physical layout
of electrical chips (i.e., whether the structure includes a pathway of a parallel
array). See Appeal Br. 12.
2 The Examiner does not rely on Storz to teach the foregoing limitation. See
Final Act. 2-4.
4
Appeal 2015-003645
Application 13/422,533
We acknowledge that the Examiner relies on a skilled artisan’s
understanding that light detection and ranging (LIDAR) and radio detection
and ranging (RADAR) have similar operations and purposes. See Ans. 3^4;
see also Spec. para. 2. However, the Examiner fails to explain adequately
— and it not otherwise apparent — how the similarities between LIDAR and
RADAR cures the deficiency of the finding based on Heidrich. See Reply
Br. 3^4. Accordingly, the Examiner fails to adequately support the
determination that the combined teachings of Ball and Heidrich result in an
“optical power splitter having N optical outputs, each optical output
connected, by a corresponding optical pathway of a parallel array, to a
common optical output surface of the optical beam sweeper,” as recited in
independent claims 1 and 15.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 15, and dependent claims 2, 13, 14, 18, and 20 as unpatentable
over Ball, Heidrich, and Storz.
The remaining rejections based on Ball, Heidrich, and Storz in
combination with Dantus, Liu, Fujimori, Kami, Jennings, MacKenzie,
Hayashi, or Good rely on the same errant findings and reasoning discussed
above, which are not cured by additional findings and/or reasoning
associated with the remaining rejections. As such, we do not sustain the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 3—12, 16, 17, 19, and 21.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—21.
REVERSED
5