Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 2016

12838129 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/838, 129 07/16/2010 5073 7590 BAKER BOTTS LLP, 2001 ROSS A VENUE SUITE 600 DALLAS, TX 75201-2980 05/18/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR InwoongKim 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. 064731.0783 5624 EXAMINER LIU,LI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2636 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2016 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): ptomaill@bakerbotts.com ptomail2@bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte INWOONG KIM and OLGA I. V ASSILIEV A Appeal2014-006732 Application 12/838, 129 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Fujitsu Limited. App. Br. 3. Appeal2014-006732 Application 12/838, 129 INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to cross-phase modulation noise reduced transmission in hybrid networks. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows: 1. A method for receiving optical signals, comprising: receiving a first set of one or more signals and a second set of one or more signals, wherein the first set of signals and the second set of signals are separated by a guard band; determining a block length used to process the first set of signals, wherein the block length is based upon the width of the guard band; and processing the first set of signals using the block length. REJECTIONS Claims 1-7, 10-17, 20-27, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ooi et al. (US 2008/0199182 Al; published Aug. 21, 2008) in view of Bertran-Pardo et al. ("Nonlinearity Limitations When Mixing 40-Gb/s Coherent PDMQPSK Channels With Preexisting 10- Gb/s NRZ Channels," IEEE Photonics Tech. Letters, Vol. 20, No 15, Aug. 1, 2008, pages 1314--16). Claims 8, 9, 18, 19, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ooi, Bertran-Pardo, and Chung et al (US 2010/0158531; published June 24, 2010). ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relied on Bertran-Pardo as disclosing the recited steps of "determining a block length used to process 2 Appeal2014-006732 Application 12/838, 129 the first set of signals, wherein the block length is based upon the width of the guard band" and "processing the first set of signals using the block length." Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner found, based on Figure 4 of Bertran- Pardo, that the averaging window is determined/optimized based on the width of the bandgap (or guard band) and the received signals are processed using the block length. Id. at 5 (citing Bertran-Pardo 1316). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "[t]here is no relationship described in Bertran-Pardo between block length and guard band, much less determining block length based upon a guard band." App. Br. 9. Appellants explain that the block length is held constant in the experiment of Bertran-Pardo where guard band is manipulated. Id. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not clearly identified a teaching or suggestion in Bertran-Pardo that, alone or in combination with Ooi, discloses the disputed claim steps. See Ans. 17-21. In particular, the Examiner has not sufficiently supported the finding that Figure 4 in Bertran- Pardo depicts that the averaging window is determined/optimized based on the width of the bandgap. See Final Act. 5 (citing Bertran-Pardo p. 1316, Fig. 4); Ans. 18. Each of other independent claims 11 and 21 recites limitations similar to the "determining" and "processing" steps discussed above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, on the record before us, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejections of independent claims 1, 11, and 21, or of claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30, dependent thereon. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-30 is reversed. 3 Appeal2014-006732 Application 12/838, 129 REVERSED 4