Ex Parte Cole et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 4, 2016

13252141 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/252,141 10/03/2011
97149 7590 04/06/2016
Maschoff Brennan
1389 Center Drive, Suite 300
Park City, UT 84098
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher R. Cole
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.
Fl002.10197US03 1030
EXAMINER
LIU,LI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2016 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@mabr.com
info@mabr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER R. COLE, LEWIS B. ARONSON,
and DARIN JAMES DOUMA
Appeal2014-006812
Application 13/252,141
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 7 and 8 were indicated as allowable. (See Final Act. 26.)
Appeal2014-006812
Application 13/252,141
INVENTION
The invention is directed to status links in multi-channel optical
communication for high-speed data transmission. (Spec. i-f 2.) Claim 1 is
illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. In a first multi-channel optoelectronic device, a
method of establishing a redundant status link with a second
multi-channel optoelectronic device, the method comprising:
generating a status link modulation signal from status data,
the status link modulation signal comprising a low frequency
modulation current and representative of the status data;
effectively applying the status link modulation signal to at
least two transmitter bias currents to generate at least two status-
link modulated transmitter bias currents, wherein each of the at
least two status-link modulated transmitter bias currents are
representative of the same status data of the status link
modulation signal;
modulating each status-link modulated transmitter bias
current with a different primary data modulation signal to obtain
at least two resulting signals, wherein each primary data
modulation signal comprises a high frequency modulation
current and represents a different primary data electrical signal
received by the optoelectronic device;
providing each resulting signal to a different optical
transmitter for transformation into at least two optical signals;
and
transmitting the at least two optical signals over a multi-
channel communication link to the second multi-channel
optoelectronic device.
Levin
Fee
DeCusatis
Maddocks
REFERENCES
us 4,994,675
us 5,995,256
US 6,359,713 Bl
US 6,483,616 Bl
2
Feb. 19, 1991
Nov. 30, 1999
Mar. 19,2002
Nov. 19, 2002
Appeal2014-006812
Application 13/252,141
Amon
Jayakumar
Se kine
US 2002/0114038 Al
US 2003/0025957 Al
US 2006/0018659 Al
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
Aug.22,2002
Feb. 6,2003
Jan. 26, 2006
Claims 1---6 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Jayakumar, DeCusatis, and Fee. (Ans.
2.)
Claims 9-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Levin, Sekine, Jayakumar, and Fee.
(Ans. 12.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Levin, Sekine, Jayakumar, Fee, and DeCusatis. (Ans.
18.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Levin, Sekine, Jayakumar, Fee, and Maddocks. (Ans.
19.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Jayakumar, DeCusatis, Fee, and Amon. (Ans. 20.)
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Jayakumar,
DeCusatis, and Fee teaches or suggests "wherein each of the at least two
2 The obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1-20 was
withdrawn by the Examiner. (See Ans. 21.)
3
Appeal2014-006812
Application 13/252,141
status-link modulated transmitter bias currents are representative of the same
status data of the status link modulation signal" as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Levin, Sekine,
Jayakumar, and Fee teaches or suggests "wherein the same status data is sent
over each of the two or more of the transmit channels of the status link" as
recited in claim 9?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Jayakumar,
DeCusatis, and Fee teaches or suggests "wherein the same status data is sent
over each of the two or more of the transmit channels of the status link" as
recited in claim 16?
ANALYSIS
We select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims comprising
claims 1---6 and 9-20 as Appellants have not argued any of the other claims
in this group with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1 recites "wherein each of the at least two status-link
modulated transmitter bias currents are representative of the same status data
of the status link modulation signal."
Appellants argue Jayakumar fails to teach and teaches away from the
limitation "same status data" as recited by claims 1 and 16. (App. Br. 13-
14.) Specifically, Appellants argue that Jayakumar paragraph 58:
states that ' [ t ]he wavelength supervisory channel (WSC) is a
mechanism for transmitting and receiving control and
management information about the wavelength in a multi-
wavelength communication system,' which clearly indicates that
each individual WSC sends control and management information
'about' an individual wavelength.
4
Appeal2014-006812
Application 13/252,141
(Id. at 14.) Appellants further cite Jayakumar paragraphs 26, 37, 62, and 63
arguing they indicate the control and management information is distinct and
relevant only to the channel upon which the WSC is carried. (See Id.)
The Examiner finds:
Jayakumar never states 'each WSC sends control and
management information about only the wavelength on which
the WSC is transmitted', and Jayakumar also never states 'the
control and management information sent on each WSC is
distinct to its wavelength and thus is not the same'.
(Ans. 24.) The Examiner finds Jayakumar abstract and paragraphs 58 and
64 teach a "redundant" feature. (See Ans. 24.)
We agree with the Examiner for two reasons. First, we agree with the
Examiner that none of Jayakumar paragraphs 26, 37, 62 or 63 expressly
teach the control and management information is "distinct" among channels
or relevant "only" to the channel upon which the WSC is carried. (See Ans.
28.) Second, we agree with the Examiner that Jayakumar's express teaching
of "redundant" in the abstract and paragraphs 58 and 64 (see Ans. 24), is
contradictory to Appellants' argument regarding Jayakumar paragraphs 26,
37, 62, or 63 of an implied teaching that the WSC management information
is distinct or relevant only to the channel upon which the WSC is carried
(see App. Br. 14.) Therefore, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred
by finding Jayakumar teaches the limitation "same status data" as recited by
claim 1.
Appellants argue Jayakumar teaches away from combining with Fee.
(See App. Br. 15.) Specifically, Appellants argue "[Jayakumar] expressly
teaches away from redundantly sending such comprehensive operational
information on multiple channels, and instead encourages the sending of
5
Appeal2014-006812
Application 13/252,141
distinct 'wavelength specific' control and management information on each
wavelength (where each wavelength is a distinct channel)." Id. We agree
with the Examiner that "Jayakumar does not criticize or discourage the
claimed transmission of 'same status data'" and that "Jayakumar teaches ...
[a] redundant, robust and fault tolerant scheme." (Ans. 26-27, emphasis
omitted.) Contrary to Appellants' argument that Jayakumar expressly
teaches away from redundantly sending such comprehensive operation
information (see App. Br. 15), we agree with the Examiner that the cited
teachings of Jayakumar in the abstract and paragraphs 58 and 64 expressly
teach "a redundant, robust and fault tolerant method." (See Ans. 24.)
For the reasons supra, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Jayakumar, DeCusatis, and Fee teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation recited in claim 1 and the commensurate
limitation recited in claim 16. For substantially similar reasons, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Levin, Sekine,
Jayakumar, and Fee teaches or suggests the commensurate limitation recited
in claim 9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6
and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).3
DECISON
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-6 and 9-20 is affirmed.
3 Claims 10-15 and 20 are variously rejected over Levin, Sekine,
Jayakumar, Fee, DeCusatis, Maddocks, and Amon. As these claims are not
argued with particularity, we reach the same conclusion with respect to these
claims as we reach with respect to claims 9 and 16, from which claims 10-
15 and 20 depend, for substantially similar reasons.
6
Appeal2014-006812
Application 13/252,141
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7