Ex Parte Nedovic

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2017

13093625 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 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.
13/093,625 04/25/2011 Nikola Nedovic 073338.0752 9051
5073 7590 10/27/2017
RAKFR ROTTST T P
EXAMINER
2001 ROSS AVENUE SANCHEZ, DIBSONJ
SUITE 700
DALLAS, TX 75201-2980 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2017 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):
ptomaill @bakerbotts.com
ptomai!2 @ bakerbotts .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex Parte NIKOLA NEDOVIC
Appeal 2017-006782
Application 13/093,625
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—6, 10—21, and 25—31, which represent
all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to coherent optical communication
detection within an optical communication system. Spec. 11.
1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
December 15, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Specification filed April 25, 2011
(“Spec.”), the Reply Brief filed March 27, 2017, the Examiner’s Answer
mailed January 26, 2017 (“Ans.”) and the Final Rejection mailed August 19,
2016 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2017-006782
Application 13/093,625
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below, with disputed limitation
italicized:
1. A method comprising:
generating, by a laser, a common-source optical signal;
distributing, by a plurality of first optical communication links,
the common-source optical signal to each of a plurality of modules
within a local optical communication system, each of the plurality of
modules comprising one or more optical interface modules, wherein
the one or more optical interface modules are optically connected to
respective optical interface modules of other modules of the plurality
of modules via one or more respective second optical communication
links;
modulating, by an optical interface module of a first one of the
plurality of modules, the common-source optical signal distributed to
the first one of the plurality of modules to generate a first modulated
optical data signal having a specified frequency;
transmitting, by the optical interface module of the first one of
the plurality of modules, the first modulated optical data signal via
one of the second optical communication links to an optical interface
module of a second one of the plurality of modules;
demodulating, by the optical interface module of the second one
of the plurality of modules, the first modulated optical data signal
using a coherent detection technique using the common-source optical
signal distributed to the second one of the plurality of modules;
modulating, by an optical interface module of a third one of the
plurality of modules, the common-source optical signal distributed to
the third one of the plurality of modules to generate a second
modulated optical data signal having the specified frequency;
transmitting, by the optical interface module of the third one of
the plurality of modules, the second modulated optical data signal via
one of the second optical communication links to an optical interface
module of a fourth one of the plurality of modules;
demodulating, by the optical interface module of the second one
of the plurality of modules, the second modulated optical data signal
2
Appeal 2017-006782
Application 13/093,625
using a coherent detection technique using the common-source optical
signal distributed to the second one of the plurality of modules; and
eliminating a phase offset between the first modulated optical
data signal and the second modulated optical data signal, wherein the
eliminating uses an optical delay locked loop;
the common-source optical signal, as routed to the first module,
the second module, and the third module is used to generate the first
modulated optical data signal, generate the second modulated optical
data signal, demodulate the first modulated optical data signal, and
demodulate the second modulated optical data signal;
the first modulated optical data signal was modulated by the
first one of the plurality of modules;
the first modulated optical data signal and the second
modulated optical data signal are transmitted to the second one of the
plurality of modules in parallel; and
the local optical communication system further comprises a
connection board connecting the plurality of modules.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—6, 10-13, 16—21, 25—28, and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US
6,282,005 Bl; issued Aug. 28, 2001), Yang et al. (Real Time Coherent
Optical OFDM Receiver at 2.5GS/s for Receiving a 54 Gb/s Multi-band
Signal), Morris et al. (US Pub 2012/0033978 Al; published Feb. 9, 2012),
and Li et al. (US Pub 2009/0142076 Al; published June 4, 2009). Final Act.
4—15.
The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Thompson, Yang, Morris, and Shpantzer et al. (US Pub
2004/0096143 Al; published May 20, 2004). Final Act. 15—17.
3
Appeal 2017-006782
Application 13/093,625
The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Thompson, Yang, Morris, and Personick et al. (US
4,642,804; issued Feb. 10, 1987). Final Act. 17—18.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant does not proffer sufficient argument or evidence for
us to find error in the Examiner’s findings. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI2010) (precedential).
Claim 1 recites, in part, “eliminat[ing] a phase offset between the first
modulated optical data signal and the second modulated optical data signal.
. . [using] an optical delay locked loop.” (emphasis added). Appellant
argues that the cited combination references, and in particular Li, fails to
teach using an “optical delay locked loop.” App. Br. 20-23 (emphasis
added).
The Examiner concludes that in the “phase locked loop” disclosed in
paragraph 3 of Li teaches the claimed “optical delay locked loop.” Ans. 5.
Appellant acknowledges that the Specification does not explain the term
“optical delay locked loop,” but argues that “optical delay locked loop” is a
term known in the art. App. Br. 22. Appellant argues that “optical delay
locked loop” means something different from phase locked loop. App. Br.
21—23; Reply Br. 3^4 (citing Zhigang Zhang et al. dated July 29, 2002, titled
“Phase-lock techniques using new correlation receivers for TOF-laser
ranging”). We agree with Appellant that “optical delay locked loop” is a
term understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. However, we are not
4
Appeal 2017-006782
Application 13/093,625
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that one skilled in the art would
understand Li’s phase locked loop to be interchangeable with the claimed
delay locked loop.
In considering the disclosure of a reference, “it is proper to take into
account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.” In rePreda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). The Examiner
finds that a “phase locked loop,” as disclosed in paragraph 3 of Li teaches
the claimed “delay locked loop” because the two are known to be equivalent,
as they both are used to eliminate phase offset. Ans. 5; Final Act. 3, 10. In
particular, the Examiner finds that it is well known in the art that a phase
locked loop and a delay locked loop are equivalent and can be used
interchangeably. Final Act. 3 (citing Poulton et al. (US 2009/0231002, Figs.
1A-1B), (showing phase locked loop Fig. 1A, and delay locked loop in Fig.
IB)). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that a skilled artisan would
understand that Li’s phase locked loop and the claimed optical delay locked
loop are interchangeable because they are both known to one skilled in the
art as being substitutable for each other to eliminate phase offset. See id.
Therefore, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 1. For the same
reasons, we sustain the rejections of independent claims 16 and 31, and
dependent claims 2—6, 10-13, 17—21, and 25—28, which are not separately
argued with particularity. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
14 and 29 as unpatentable over Thompson, Yang, Morris, and Shpantzer,
and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 30 as unpatentable over
Thompson, Yang, Morris, and Personick, for the same reasons.
5
Appeal 2017-006782
Application 13/093,625
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—6, 10—21, and 25—31
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6