Ex Parte Devgan

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 11, 2019

14951673 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/951,673 11/25/2015 26902 7590 01/15/2019 Department of the Air Force AFMCLO/JAZ 2240 B Street Building 11 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Preetpaul S. Devgan 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. AFD 1324CON 5109 EXAMINER BELLO, AGUSTIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2637 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/15/2019 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): Pamela.Kuns@us.af.mil afmclo.jaz.1@us.af.mil afmclo.jaz.pat@us.af.mil PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PREETP AULS. DEVGAN Appeal2018-000098 Application 14/951,673 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2018-000098 Application 14/951,673 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1--4. Claims 5 and 6 have been indicated to be allowable if rewritten in independent form. (Final Act. 5.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention relates to isolating an RF signal. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method of isolating an RF signal, the method compnsmg: receiving a first RF signal; passing the first RF signal to an input of a first 90 degree hybrid, a first output of the first 90 degree hybrid electrically connected to a first electrical waveguide of an optical modulator and a second output of the first 90 degree hybrid electrically connected to a second electrical waveguide of the optical modulator; receiving a second RF signal; passing the second RF signal to an input of a second 90 degree hybrid in a complementary configuration with respect to the first 90 degree hybrid, a first output of the second 90 degree hybrid electrically connected to the second electrical waveguide of the optical modulator and a second output of the second 90 degree hybrid electrically connected to the first electrical waveguide of the optical modulator; biasing the optical modulator to produce single side band optical outputs of the first RF signal to co-propagate with an optical field of the optical modulator and the second RF signal to counter-propagate with the optical field of the optical modulator; 2 Appeal2018-000098 Application 14/951,673 passing the optical single side band optical outputs of the first and second RF signals to an optical notch filter to remove one of the single side band optical outputs of the first and second RF signals; and converting the other of the single side band optical outputs of the first and second RF signals to an electrical signal. Claims 1, 2, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Way (US 7,003,231 B2; Feb. 21, 2006). Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Way and Ono (US 6,970,655 B2; Nov. 29, 2005). ANALYSIS Â§ 102 Rejection-Way We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 11) that Way does not describe the limitation "biasing the optical modulator to produce single side band optical outputs of ... the second RF signal to counter- propagate with the optical field of the optical modulator," as recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner found that Figure 5C of Way, which illustrates an RF signal "f1(m2)" input, corresponds to the limitation "biasing the optical modulator to produce single side band optical outputs of ... the second RF signal to counter-propagate with the optical field of the optical modulator." (Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 12.) In particular, the Examiner found that "Way's Figure 5C further reveals that Way's second RF signal f1(m2) ... counter-propagates with the optical field input to the modulator before making a ninety-degree tum towards the modulator [104]" and, thus, "Way's 3 Appeal2018-000098 Application 14/951,673 first RF signal f1(m2) counter-propagates with AIN." (Ans. 12.) We do not agree with the Examiner's findings. Way relates to "combining interleaved optical single sidebands with a modulated optical carrier." (Col. 1, 11. 19-21.) Figure 5C of Way, reproduced below, illustrates a dual-electrode Mach-Zehnder modulator 104. (Col. 7, 11. 27-30.) Figure 5C of Way further illustrates signal m2 (i.e., "f1(m2)") phase-shifted 90Â° with respect to each other, as indicated by the two annotations as dashed ovals. 108 .. 'X.IN .. "Avur FIG.-5C f1(m2} Way explains the following: An incoming light signal AJN is split into a first optical signal A1 and a second optical signal A2. An RF alternating current electrode 106 is used to modulate the two optical signals with a first channel ml, to be transmitted, however, the signal is applied to the carrier in such a way that the m 1 component of the first and second optical signals are phase-shifted 90Â° with respect to each other. At the same time, the RF alternating current modulates the two optical signals with a second signal m2, with the m2 component of the first and second optical signals phase- shifted 90Â° with respect to each other. (Col. 11, 11. 6-17.) From the above reproduced Figure 5C, the two dashed ovals indicate the paths of two phase shifted m2 components. 4 Appeal2018-000098 Application 14/951,673 While Figure 5C apparently illustrates that the path of the two phase shifted components travels from "right to left," as indicated by the annotations in Figure 5C, the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that Figure 5C teaches the limitation "biasing the optical modulator to produce single side band optical outputs of ... the second RF signal to counter-propagate with the optical field of the optical modulator." In particular, although Way explains that "the RF alternating current modulates the two optical signals with a second signal m2, with the m2 component of the first and second optical signals phase-shifted 90Â° with respect to each other," Way is silent with respect to "counter propagation." Because Way is silent with respect to "counter propagation," the arrows illustrated in Figure 5C are likely an indication that the m2 components are input into modulator 104, rather than a disclosure that the m2 components "counter propagate" with incoming light signal AIN. Nevertheless, to the extent that modifying the m2 components to counter propagate with incoming light signal AJN would have been obvious over Figure 5C of Way, this question of obviousness is not before us. Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Way discloses the limitation "an optical field of the optical modulator and the second RF signal to counter-propagate with the optical field of the optical modulator," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant's argument that: There is no indication in either figure nor any disclosure in Way related to Figures 5( c) and 5( d) that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to believe that the input of the second 90 degree hybrid is in a complementary configuration with respect to a first 90 degree hybrid or that the output signals related to f1(ml) are co-propagating while the output signals of f1(m2) are counter- 5 Appeal2018-000098 Application 14/951,673 propagating with respect to the optical field m the optical modulator. (App. Br. 11.) Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l). Claim 2 depends from claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Independent claim 4 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Â§ 103 Rejection-Way and Ono Claim 3 depends from independent claim 1. Ono was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 3. (Final Act. 5.) However, the Examiner's application of Ono does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Way. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4 is reversed. REVERSED 6