Ex Parte Chen

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 27, 2019

15493145 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/493,145 04/21/2017
11336 7590 07/01/2019
Litron Patent and Trademark Office
l IF.-2, No.248, Sec. 3, Nanjing E. Rd.
Songshan District
Taipei City, 10595
TAIWAN
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cheng Sean Chen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
6135.00lUS 8786
EXAMINER
ROJAS, OMAR R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2019 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):
miketeng@litron-intl.com
j aniceshih@litron-intl.com
laurachu@litron-intl.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHENG SEAN CHEN
Appeal2019-000120
Application 15/493,145
Technology Center 2800
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a cable assembly for
converting electrical signals to optical signals. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1 reads:
1. A cable assembly, comprising:
a cable, comprising at least one first fiber wire and at
least one second fiber wire; and
1 We refer to the Specification ("Spec.") filed April 21, 2017; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") dated November 17, 2017; Appellant's Appeal Brief
("Br.") filed May 31, 2018; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated August 1,
2018; and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed October 1, 2018.
Appeal2019-000120
Application 15/ 493, 145
a first connector connected to the cable, wherein the first
connector comprises:
a first interface, for connecting with an external device to
receive data therefrom; and
at least one circuit board, wherein a plurality of devices
are disposed on the at least one circuit board to form a circuitry,
wherein the circuitry comprises at least one laser diode for
emitting at least one optical signal to the at least one first fiber
wire so as to transfer the data received from the external device
and
at least one first light-emitting diode (LED) for emitting a
first visible light to the at least one second fiber wire of the
cable.
App. Br. 11 (Claims Appendix) ( emphasis added to highlight the key
recitation in dispute).
Claim 16 is directed to an earphone integrated with a cable assembly
essentially as recited in claim 1. Each of the remaining claims on appeal
depends from claim 1 or 16.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Wu2 and Hosking. 3
II. Claims 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Wu, Hosking, and Kim. 4
2 US 2015/0346448 Al, published December 3, 2015.
3 US 2010/0028014 Al, published February 4, 2010.
4 US 2007/0141915 Al, published June 21, 2007.
2
Appeal2019-000120
Application 15/ 493, 145
OPINION
Appellant argues for patentability of the appealed claims on the basis
of recitations found in claim 1, and does not separately argue independent
claim 16 or any of the dependent claims. Accordingly, we focus our
discussion on claim 1 as argued by Appellant; all other claims will stand or
fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
The Examiner finds that Wu discloses a cable comprising a plurality
of optical fibers, an interface for connecting the optical fibers to an external
device, and a circuit board, including a laser diode, configured to convert an
electrical signal received from the external device to an optical signal
emitted to the optical fibers. Final Act. 4. Appellant does not dispute the
foregoing findings. See App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 7-12.
The Examiner also finds that Wu teaches providing at least a portion
of the optical fiber cable with a transparent portion, so that a visible
component of transmitted light may be seen. Ans. 2-3 ( citing Wu ,r 67).
See also Wu ,r 67 ("[V]isible light rays can pass through the transparent
portion 133. That is, a color light in the optical fiber 131 can be viewed
through the transparent portion 133."). According to Wu, "visible light
penetrating through the transparent portion 13 3 can indicate a using status of
the optical cable ... such as a status in transmitting signals or a status in
supplying power." Wu ,r 67.
The Examiner finds that Hosking teaches driving at least one LED to
selectively emit visible light as status indicators on an optical transceiver.
Final Act. 4; Ans. 3. According to Hosking, a controller module detects the
status of a transmitter or receiver component of the transceiver, "and drives a
multi-colored light-emitting diode (LED) based on the value detected."
3
Appeal2019-000120
Application 15/ 493, 145
Hosking ,r 9. Light emitted from the LED may be conducted to an opening
on the transceiver by a light conductor such as a light-pipe. Id. Indicated
status information includes "transmission status, operational status,
diagnostic data, operational parameters, and the like." Id. ,r 8.
In light of the foregoing teachings, the Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Wu's
device with at least one controlled LED as taught by Hosking to permit
selective visual display of operating status parameters. Final Act. 4--5; Ans.
3.
Appellant argues that Wu's cable device does not include a second
fiber wire for transmitting light emitted by an LED and, instead, transmits
optical data through all of the fibers. App. Br. 8. Appellant also argues that
Hosking does not teach transmitting the LED-emitted status indicator light
to "at least one second fiber wire" of the cable, as is recited in claim 1. Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant additionally argues that it would "not make
sense to replace the laser diode of the cited reference Wu with the LED
diode of the cited references Hosking, because the LED diode of the cited
reference Hosking is not used to generate an optical signal for transmitting
data to an external device." Reply Br. 10-11.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. One
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually when
the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413,425 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, "[t]he test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of
4
Appeal2019-000120
Application 15/ 493, 145
ordinary skill in the art." Id. Here, the Examiner presents evidence that Wu
desires to transmit both data and visible status information through a
plurality of optical fibers in an electro-optical transceiver, and Hosking
teaches use of a controlled LED source as an advantageous device for
providing visible status information in connection with an electro-optical
transceiver. The fact that neither Wu nor Hosking expressly describes both
those features in a single prior art reference is not persuasive of error in the
Examiner's obviousness determination. Regarding Appellant's argument
that it would not make sense to replace Wu's laser diode with Hosking's
LED, we do not read the Examiner's statement of the rejection as involving
such replacement. Rather, the Examiner determines it would have been
obvious to supplement Wu's cable with a controlled LED, such as that
taught by Hosking, to provide enhanced status indication within one or more
of Wu's optical fibers.
Having determined that Appellant has not shown reversible error, and
because the Examiner's findings are supported by a preponderance of
evidence, we sustain the rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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).
AFFIRMED
5