Ex Parte Paslaski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

14474174 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
14/474,174 08/31/2014 Joel S. Paslaski 84701316US06 2709
97291 7590 04/03/2017
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
c/o Wenjun Gu (Huawei ID 00229515)
Building Gl-2, Huawei Industrial Base,
Bantian, Longgang District,
Shenzhen, 518129
CHINA
EXAMINER
WOLDEKIDAN, HIBRET ASNAKE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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):
uspatent@huawei.com
shiming. wu @huawei.com
ltian @ huawei. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOEL S. PASLASKI
Appeal 2016-0049491
Application 14/474,174
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge
JEAN R. HOMERE.
Opinion Dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge JOHN A. EVANS.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Non-Final Rejection
of claims 170—196. Br. 3. Claims 1—169 have been canceled. Claims
App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as HOYA Corporation USA.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-004949
Application 14/474,174
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a bidirectional optoelectronic device and method
with reduced crosstalk. Spec. 110. In particular, the bidirectional
optoelectronic device includes a photodetector (114), a light source (116)
generating an output optical signal (16), and a drive circuit (250) for the
light source (116), where the photodetector (114) receives an input optical
signal (14) modulated to encode first transmitted information and generate
an output electrical signal (24) modulated to encode the first transmitted
information. Spec. 1 52, Fig. 7. When the light source (116) and the
photodetector (114) are positioned sufficiently close (within 2mm to 5mm
apart) on a common substrate, the drive circuit (250) is arranged to reduce
crosstalk (3dB or less) by applying a first portion (27b) of an input electrical
signal (26) to a first electrical lead (126b) of the light source (116), and by
applying a second portion (27a) of the input electrical signal (26) to the
second lead (126a) of the light source (116), wherein the second portion
(27a) is a scaled, inverted substantial replica of the first portion (27b). Spec.
11 56—58, Fig. 7.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 170, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
170. A bidirectional optoelectronic device comprising:
(a) a photodetector arranged (i) to receive an input optical
signal modulated to encode first transmitted information and
(ii) to generate in response to the input optical signal an output
electrical signal modulated to encode the first transmitted
information;
2
Appeal 2016-004949
Application 14/474,174
(b) a light source arranged (i) to receive an input electrical
signal modulated to encode second transmitted information and
(ii) to generate in response to the input electrical signal an
output optical signal modulated to encode the second
transmitted information, which light source has first and second
electrical leads for receiving the input electrical signal; and
(c) a drive circuit arranged to apply a first portion of the
input electrical signal to the first electrical lead of the light
source and to apply a second portion of the input electrical
signal to the second lead of the light source, wherein the second
portion of the input electrical signal is a scaled, inverted
substantial replica of the first portion of the input electrical
signal,
wherein:
(d) the photodetector exhibits a cross-talk penalty less than
about 3 dB;
(e) the light source and the photodetector are positioned on a
common substrate; and
(f) (i) edge dimensions of the substrate are less than about
10 mm or (ii) the light source and the photodetector are
positioned within about 2 mm of each other.
Prior Art Relied Upon
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Goutzoulis et al.
Oda et al.
Tanaka et al.
Costello et al.
US 4,950,882
US 5,677,779
US 2007/0047602 Al
US 2011/0121181 Al
Aug. 21, 1990
Oct. 14, 1997
Mar. 1,2007
May 26, 2011
Xiaomin Jin et al., Electromagnetic Crosstalk Penalty in 2.5 GB/s and 10
GB/s Serial Optical Modules, 2006.2
2 Appellant and the Examiner identify this reference as “Xiaomin”; however,
we use the author’s last name to identify this reference.
3
Appeal 2016-004949
Application 14/474,174
Rejections on Appeal3
Appellant requests review of the following Examiner’s rejections:
Claims 170-173, 176-179, 181-186, 189-193, 195, and 196 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Oda, Tanaka, Jin, and Costello. Non-Final Act. 10-16.
Claims 174, 175, 187, and 188 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Oda, Tanaka, Jin,
Costello, and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). Non-Final Act. 16—18.
Claims 180 and 194 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Oda, Tanaka, Jin, Costello, and
Goutzoulis. Non-Final Act. 18—19.
ANAFYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4—8.4
Appellant argues the proposed combination of Oda, Tanaka, Jin, and
Costello does not teach or suggest the bidirectional optoelectronic device
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the non-statutory obviousness-type double
patenting rejections previously entered against claims 171, 173—184, and
186—196 on appeal. Ans. 11.
4 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 24, 2015) (“Br.”), the Answer (mailed
January 20, 2016) (“Ans.”), the Non-Final Office Action (mailed December
24, 2014) (“Non-Final Act.”), and the original Specification (filed August
31, 2014) (“Spec.”) for the respective details. We have considered in this
Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
4
Appeal 2016-004949
Application 14/474,174
recited in claim 170. Br. 4. According to Appellant, the cited references do
not recognize the problem of increasing crosstalk penalty with decreasing
space between a light source and a photodetector. Br. 4—5 (citing Spec. Tflf
47, 56). Appellant asserts that the cited references do not teach the desire of
achieving the recited
the photodetector exhibits a cross-talk penalty less than about 3
dB, the light source and the photodetector are positioned on a
common substrate and edge dimensions of the substrate are less
than about 10 mm or the light source and the photodetector are
positioned within about 2 mm of each other.
Br. 5. These arguments are not persuasive.
At the outset, we note Appellant’s arguments do not rebut the
Examiner’s findings regarding the limitations the cited references are relied
upon to teach. Br. 4—5. The Examiner finds Jin teaches a cross-talk penalty
of less than 3 db. Ans. 12 (citing Jin Sec. 2). The Examiner additionally
finds Costello teaches a light source and photodetector positioned about 2
mm of each other. Ans. 12 (citing Costello 122, Fig. 2). We disagree with
Appellant that the cited references do not recognize the problem of
increasing cross-talk with reduced dimensions. Br. 4—5. The Examiner
finds Costello recognizes the urgency of the problem of reducing infrared
signal crosstalk with smaller proximity sensor packages. Non-Final Act.
13—14 (citing Costello 5—6).
Second, Appellant contends Costello is non-analogous art with respect
to claim 170. Br. 5. In particular, Appellant states, “although the device of
Costello includes both a light source and photodetector, it is in no way
analogous to a bidirectional optoelectronic device wherein the optical end
electrical signals encode information.” Br. 5. In response, the Examiner
5
Appeal 2016-004949
Application 14/474,174
finds the device of Costello is a bidirectional optoelectronic device with an
optical signal transmitter and optical signal receiver. Ans. 13—14 (citing
Costello 120, Fig. 3). We agree with the Examiner that the device of
Costello is within the same field of endeavor as that of claim 170 which
recites a bidirectional optoelectronic device.5 To be within the same field of
endeavor as the present application, Costello need not detail every claimed
limitation, nor does the disclosed bidirectional optoelectronic device need to
be directed to a particular encoding scheme.6 It suffices that Costello
discloses an optoelectronic device for communicating signals between the
transmitter and a receiver. Moreover, as discussed above, we further agree
5 “Whether a reference in the prior art is ‘analogous’ is a fact question.” In
re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v.
Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Two criteria have evolved for answering the question: “(1) whether the art is
from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and
(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether
the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved. Id. at 658—59 (citing In re Deminski, 796
F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA
1979)). “A reference is reasonably pertinent if... it is one which, because
of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to
an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” Id. at 659. “If a
reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the
reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports use of that
reference in an obviousness rejection.” Id.
6 Moreover, a reference need not disclose every limitation to fall within the
same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. See In re Naren Chaganti,
No. 2013-1372 (Fed Cir, 2014). The field of endeavor of a patent is not
limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of
the field, or the particular focus within a given field. Unwired Planet, LLC v.
Google Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1593 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
6
Appeal 2016-004949
Application 14/474,174
with the Examiner that the device of Costello is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem of increasing crosstalk with decreasing dimensions, with
which Appellant is concerned. Ans. 13—14; Non-Final Act. 13—14 (citing
Costello 5—6). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Costello is
analogous art with respect to claim 170.
Third, Appellant asserts that there is no teaching in the cited
references of the link between polarity of the driver circuit of the light
source and the reduction of crosstalk. Br. 5—7. In particular, Appellant
argues nothing in the cited references that suggests or teaches that cross-talk
penalty changes as the result of replacing a unipolar drive circuit for the light
source with a bipolar drive circuit. Br. 6.
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner that the change in
cross-talk penalty with replacement of unipolar drive circuit with a bipolar
drive circuit is not recited in claim 170 and thus, Appellant is arguing
limitations not recited in the claim. Ans. 14. Nevertheless, the Examiner
finds Tanaka teaches a non-inverting output and inverting output of a driver,
as a bipolar drive circuit, to drive a laser diode (LD) light source 21. Non-
Final Act. 11—12 (citing Tanaka 133, Fig. 1). The laser diode (LD) 21
generates an optical signal that is monitored by the photodiode (PD) 22. See
Tanaka 130, Fig. 1. The voltage signal from the photodiode (PD) 22 is
VMON. See Tanaka 135, Fig. 1. Appellant agrees Tanaka teaches cross­
talk. Br. 6 (citing Tanaka 52, 85). Tanaka teaches that crosstalk noise is
low in VMON which is derived from the optical signal from the laser diode
(LD) 21, driven by a bipolar drive circuit. See Tanaka 30, 33, 35, 52, Fig.
1. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the ordinarily skilled artisan would
7
Appeal 2016-004949
Application 14/474,174
readily appreciate that reduction of cross-talk with the use of a bipolar driver
circuit is taught or at least suggested in the system of Tanaka.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 170.
Regarding claim 178, Appellant argues Jin does not teach selecting a
scale factor relating to the inverted portions of the electrical signal to
minimize cross-talk penalty. Br. 7. In particular, Appellant contends Jin
teaches a ratio of output electronic signals can measure cross-talk penalty,
but not adjusting the ratio to change cross-talk. Br. 7. The Examiner
responds that controlling the input signal into channel A and B selects the
ratio as a scaling factor. Ans. 14—15 (citing Jin Sec. 1). We agree with the
Examiner because Jin teaches adjusting the cross-talk penalty by attenuating
the optical signal received at the receiver (channel A) and thus, controlling
the input signal by selecting the ratio as a scaling factor to minimize cross­
talk penalty. See Jin Sec. 2, Figs. 1,3. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
of error of the Examiner’s rejection of claim 178.
Regarding claim 192, Appellant argues the cited references do not
teach an optimization procedure to determine the scale factor relating to
inverted portions of the electrical signal to reduce crosstalk penalty. Br. 8.
The Examiner finds Tanaka teaches a feedback error signal to adjust the
driving signals and thus, Tanaka teaches an optimization procedure. Ans. 15
(citing Tanaka 133, Fig. 1). We agree with the Examiner because, as
discussed above, Tanaka suggests that crosstalk noise can be changed in
VMON which is derived from the optical signal from the laser diode (LD)
21, driven by the driving signals. See Tanaka 30, 33, 35, 52, Fig. 1.
Therefore, Tanaka suggests the optimization procedure may determine the
8
Appeal 2016-004949
Application 14/474,174
scale factor to reduce crosstalk penalty. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 192.
Regarding the rejections of claims 171—177, 179-191, and 193—196,
because Appellant have either not presented separate patentability arguments
or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of independent claims 1 and 11 (Br. 3, 8), claims
171—177, 179—191, and 193—196 fall therewith for the same reasons set forth
above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 170-196.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOEL S. PASLASKI
Appeal 2016-004949
Application 14/474,174
Technology Center 2600
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
ANALOGOUS ART
For the reasons discussed below, I find Costello is not analogous art
for purposes of the present claims. Moreover, I also find the Examiner has
failed to show that the claimed “cross-talk penalty” is taught by the prior art,
I, therefore, respectfully dissent from the Majority Opinion and would
REVERSE the rejection of all claims.
Legal Standard for Analogous Art
The ultimate determination of obviousness under § 103 is a question
of law, based on several underlying factual findings. In re Klein, 647 F.3d
1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Federal Circuit reviews the Board’s legal
conclusion of obviousness de novo. Id. (citing In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Federal Circuit reviews the Board’s legal
conclusions, de novo, therefore, a fortiori, the Board must review the
Appeal 2016-004949
Application 14/474,174
Examiner’s legal conclusions de novo. The Examiner draws the legal
conclusion “that the Costello [reference] is an analogous art.” Ans. 14. I
disagree with this conclusion and the Majority’s adoption thereof.
A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under §
103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Klein at 1348;
Innovention Toys, LLC, v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321
(Fed.Cir.2011); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2004); In re Clay,
966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed.Cir.1992).
Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of
the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved.
In re Klein at 1348 (citing Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325).
Same field of endeavor
The Examiner finds Oda discloses a bidirectional optoelectronic device
comprising a photodetector arranged to receive an input optical signal
having a first portion modulated to encode information. Final Act. 10—11.
The Examiner finds Costello teaches “an electronic device having edge
dimensions less than 10 mm” wherein a light source and photodetector are
placed within 2 mm of each other. Non-Final Act. 13 (emphasis omitted).
The “field of endeavor” test asks whether the structure and function of
the prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill
in the art, because of the similarity to the structure and function of
theclaimed invention as disclosed in the application. Schott Gemtron Corp.
v. SSWHolding Co. Inc., IPR2013-00358, slip op. at 19 (citing Bigio, at
2
Appeal 2016-004949
Application 14/474,174
1325—27). “It is necessary to [apply] ‘common sense’ in ‘deciding in which
fields a person of ordinary skill would reasonably be expected to look for a
solution to the problem facing the inventor’.” Id. at 1326.
Appellant discloses “[t]he field of the present invention [i.e., “field of
endeavor”] relates to bidirectional or multi-channel optoelectronic devices,
including bidirectional optoelectronic transceivers.” Spec., 12. Appellant
discloses “generally, a multi-channel optoelectronic device is one that can
simultaneously handle such conversion between electrical and optical
signals for two or more such pairs of corresponding signals (each pair
comprising a ‘channel’).” Id. at 13. Specifically, Appellant details “each
signal (electrical or optical) typically comprises a carrier wave modulated
according to a given scheme to encode digital or analog information.” Id. at
15.
The Examiner’s finding that “Costello is a bidirectional opto­
electronic device” (Ans. 13) is not grounded in Appellant’s Specification.
“The ‘field of endeavor’ test asks [whether] the structure and function of the
prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in
the art, because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed
invention as disclosed in the application.” Schott Gemtron at 19 (emphasis
added). The Examiner makes no finding that Costello teaches a signal
modulated to encode information, as disclosed by Appellant. Spec., 1 5.
The Examiner is silent as to which Bigio prong is found to be satisfied.
However, Costello implicitly fails the “same field of endeavor” prong of the
Bigio test. Therefore, the Examiner’s finding that Costello is “analogous
art,” must rely on the “reasonably pertinent” prong of the Bigio test.
3
Appeal 2016-004949
Application 14/474,174
Reasonably pertinent
It is not required that a reference be from the same field of endeavor
as the claimed invention, in light of the Supreme Court’s instruction:
“[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and
other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
different one.” KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402 (2007). “A
reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field
from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter
with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s
attention in considering his problem.” In re Klein at 1348 (citing Clay, 966
F.2d at 659).
The Examiner finds the references are analogous because each
reference, including Costello, teaches an optoelectronic device having a
cross-talk penalty less than about 3dB. Ans. 13.
Appellant contends Costello is not analogous to a bidirectional
optoelectronic device wherein the optical end electrical signals encode
information. App. Br. 5. Appellant argues Costello does not encode
information, thus, the entire notion of a cross-talk penalty is not relevant to
the claims or the cited art and therefore the light source and detector can be
placed as close as one would like. Id.
The Examiner and Appellant differ as to the implication of Costello’s
teaching of cross-talk. Compare Ans. 13 with App. Br. 5.
Appellant discloses each electrical or optical signal comprises a
carrier wave modulated according to encode digital or analog information.
Spec., 13. Appellant further discloses a correspondence between the input
optical signal and the output electrical signal. Id. Appellant discloses
4
Appeal 2016-004949
Application 14/474,174
“sensitivity” is the minimum optical power needed to ensure sufficiently
faithful encoding on the output electrical signal of information encoded on
the input optical signal (e.g., to guarantee a bit error rate below a specified
limit for a digital data signal). Spec. 17. Importantly for the claims and for
a finding that Costello is analogous art, Appellant defines “cross-talk
penalty” as the ratio of the sensitivity of the photodetector with versus
without the input electrical signal applied to the light source. Id.
Appellant argues Costello does not encode information, thus, the
entire notion of a cross-talk penalty is not relevant to the claims or the cited
art. App. Br. 5. The Examiner does not construe the term “cross-talk
penalty” that is recited in the claims, nor does the Examiner define
Costello’s “cross-talk.” “The construction that stays true to the claim
language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the
invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). However, while the
PTO is required to give claims their “broadest reasonable construction,” the
“claims should always be read in light of the specification” and the broadest
reasonable construction rule does not provide “an unfettered license to
interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed
invention.” See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1010).
The claimed “cross-talk penalty” is the ratio of the sensitivity of the
photodetector with versus without the input electrical signal applied to the
light source. Spec. 17. As defined by Appellant, the “cross-talk penalty”
relates to ratios of information bit error rates. Id. Because Costello does not
teach modulating a signal to encode information, Costello cannot teach the
claimed “cross-talk penalty.”
5
Appeal 2016-004949
Application 14/474,174
In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 98 USPQ2d 1991 (Fed. Cir. 2011),
is instructive as to the “reasonably pertinent” prong for
determining whether a reference is analogous art. In
determining whether a reference is reasonably pertinent, an
examiner should consider the problem faced by the inventor, as
reflected - either explicitly or implicitly - in the specification.
See Bahr Memorandum.7 However, the Examiner compared Costello to the
prior art, not to Appellant’s Specification. (“This shows that the Costello is
an analogous art since all the references related to optoelectronics devices.”)
Ans. 14.
Substantial Evidence
The Federal Circuit reviews the Board’s underlying factual findings
for substantial evidence. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(citing In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Board’s
determination that a prior art reference is analogous art presents an issue of
fact, reviewed for substantial evidence. In re Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed.Cir.2007). However, the Examiner’s finding that
Costello is prior art lacks a factual predicate. The Examiner made a finding
relating to Costello’s “cross-talk,” but did not relate that to the claimed
“cross-talk penalty.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
1998) (citation omitted) (finding “the name of the game is the claim”). Nor
did the Examiner make a finding that Costello’s “cross-talk” has any relation
to ratios of information bit error rates, as defined by Appellant. See Spec. 1
7 Robert W. Bahr, Analogous Art for Obviousness Rejections, Memorandum
to Patent Examining Corps, July 26, 2011,
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/exam/analogous_art.pd
f. We note the Bahr Memorandum is not binding upon the Board. However,
it is guidance that, reasonably, the Examining Corps should follow.
6
Appeal 2016-004949
Application 14/474,174
7. The Examiner’s “argument is unpersuasive in light of our claim
construction of the term” [“cross-talk penalty”]. Schott Gemtron at 20
(finding the accused reference not to be analogous art). Whereas the PTO is
required to give claims their “broadest reasonable construction,” the “claims
should always be read in light of the specification” and the broadest
reasonable construction rule does not provide “an unfettered license to
interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed
invention.” See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1010).
In view of the foregoing, I would find Costello is not analogous art for
purposes of the present claims. Moreover, I would also find the Examiner
has failed to show that the claimed “cross-talk penalty” is taught by the prior
art. I, therefore, respectfully dissent from the Majority Opinion and would
REVERSE the rejection of all claims.
7