Ex Parte Rafel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2017

12295117 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 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.
12/295,117 09/29/2008 Albert Rafel 4359.13WOUS 5192
135778 7590 08/31/2017
Patterson Thuente Pedersen, P.A.
4800 IDS CENTER
80 SOUTH 8TH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2100
EXAMINER
KING, JOSHUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2828
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2017 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):
efsuspto@ptslaw.com
salmela@ptslaw.com
rabe@ptslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALBERT RAFAEL, DEREK NESSET,
MARK E. SCOPES, and ALAN M. HILL
Appeal 2016-000944
Application 12/295,117
Technology Center 2800
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JAMES W. DEJMEK and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 9—11.' Oral arguments were heard on August 17,
2017. A transcript of the hearing will be added to the record in due course.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Claims 1—11 are currently pending. In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew
the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 5 and 8. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2016-000944
Application 12/295,117
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the only independent claim. The claims relate generally to
introducing an outstation, also referred to as an optical network unit (ONU),
into a passive optical network (PON) and, more specifically, to the various
states and set-up operations performed when introducing an ONU.
Spec. 1:4—6, 1:15—25,4:1—14. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of introducing an outstation into an optical
network, the optical network having a central station, and a
plurality of previously introduced outstations which are optically
connected to the central station, the network being operable in: a
normal operating state in which data traffic is received from
previously introduced outstations at a normal data rate; and, a
set-up state in which the transmission of data traffic from the
previously introduced outstations is restricted relative to the
normal state, the method including:
when the network is in the set-up state, performing
a set-up operation for introducing the outstation into the
optical network, the set-up operation involving the
transmission of set-up data from the outstation that is
being introduced, wherein the set-up data is transmitted at
a reduced rate relative to the normal rate.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9—11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Chang (US 2002/0171895 Al; Nov. 21, 2002). Final
Act. 3—5.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view
of Chang and Thomas (US 6,832,046 Bl; Dec. 14, 2004). Final Act. 5—6.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view
of Chang and Kasai (US 2006/0127087 Al; June 15, 2006). Final Act. 6.
2
Appeal 2016-000944
Application 12/295,117
OPINION
Appellants present various arguments asserting that the pending
claims are patentable over Chang (or Chang in view of either Thomas or
Kasai). App. Br. 10-19. However, because it is dispositive of this Appeal,
we address only Appellants’ argument that Chang does not disclose “the
transmission of set-up data from the outstation that is being introduced,
wherein the set-up data is transmitted at a reduced rate relative to the normal
rate.” App. Br. 11—15; Reply Br. 4—6.
The Examiner finds paragraphs 104, 123, and 126 of Chang disclose
the performing a set-up operation step. Final Act. 3^4. In particular, the
Examiner finds “Figures 13 and 14 of Chang represent data transmitted
during a normal operation and a setup operation respectively.” Ans. 3. The
Examiner states Figure 13 depicts “data transmitted during normal
operation” and Figure 14 depicts “data transmitted during a ranging
operation,” which the Examiner finds discloses a set-up state because
ranging is necessary to introduce a new outstation. Id. at 4 (citing Chang
192). The Examiner explains that, although Figure 14 does not depict
Chang’s ONU E (Chang refers to the exemplary ONU being introduced into
the PON as “ONU E”) transmitting data, ONU E must perform a ranging
operation so the optical line terminal (OLT) can determine the distance from
ONU E to the OLT in order to assign ONU E a time slot for transmitting
data. Id. at 4—5 (citing Chang 120). The Examiner also points to Figures 20
and 22 of Chang, and the accompanying description, as showing that ONU E
transmits data during a ranging operation. Id. at 5, 6 (citing Chang || 111,
126). Regarding the recited transmitting the set-up data “at a reduced rate
relative to the normal rate,” the Examiner finds Chang discloses all ONUs
3
Appeal 2016-000944
Application 12/295,117
transmit less data during the ranging operation. Id. at 6—8 (citing Chang
11104, 116-121, Figs. 13, 14, 20, 22).
Appellants contend, among other things, that the portions of Chang
cited by the Examiner, specifically Figures 13 and 14 and paragraph 104,
describe sending instructions from the OLT to previously introduced ONUs
(described by Chang as “warm” or “already in service” ONUs) to stop
transmitting lower priority data frames, but not to the ONU being introduced
(described by Chang as a “cold” ONU and, in the provided examples,
identified as “ONU E”). App. Br. 12—13. Appellants further assert that
ONU E is not even a part of the PON at the time the OLT sends instructions
for the previously introduced ONUs to stop transmitting lower priority data
frames, which Figures 13 and 14 because the figures do not depict ONU E
transmitting any data frames. Id. Moreover, Appellants argue Chang’s
instructions are sent to existing ONUs to change their transmission behavior
“precisely to enable addition of the cold ONU.” Id. at 13.
Appellants conclude the Examiner errs in relying on the instructions
sent to existing ONUs (prior to ONU E’s insertion into the PON) as teaching
transmitting set-up data at a lower data rate because “Chang provides no
disclosure or suggestion that ONU E transmits at a lower rate once it is
inserted.” Id. at 14. Finally, Appellants contend that, even to the extent
paragraph 126 and Figure 22 of Chang disclose ONU E participating in
ranging operations, “Chang does not disclose or even suggest that these data
frames are transmitted at a reduced rate,” and Chang does not discuss
ranging occurring at a reduced rate relative to a normal rate for an ONU
being introduced. Id. at 14—15.
4
Appeal 2016-000944
Application 12/295,117
We agree with the Examiner’s statement that “ONU E of Chang
necessarily transmits data during” ranging. See Ans. 4. However, the
Examiner relies on Figure 14 and paragraph 104 as teaching the set-up data
transmitted “from the outstation that is being introduced ... is transmitted at
a reduced rate relative to the normal rate.” See Final Act. 2 (describing
Chang’s Figure 14 as showing the data rate during automatic ranging and
stating that ONU E is only transmitting high priority frames, thus
“transmitting at a lower data rate,” based on Chang’s disclosure in paragraph
104 that “all ONUs are instructed to send only highest priority frames
thereby lowering the data rate.”).
As Appellants argue, the discussion in paragraph 104 indicates that
only the ONUs that already exist in the PON, not ONUs being introduced
(such as ONU E), are instructed to stop transmitting lower priority data
frames. This is evident from Figure 14’s depiction of only ONUs already
introduced into the PON, paragraph 104’s disclosure that the instruction to
stop transmitting lower priority frames is done to “allow[] the insertion of
the cold ONU E into the PON,” and the description in paragraphs 110 and
111 that ONU E is now inserted and can participate in the ranging operation
(after the instruction was already sent). See Chang || 104, 110, 111, Fig. 14.
Constrained by this record, the preponderance of the evidence does
not support the Examiner’s finding that the cited portions of Chang teach or
suggest at least “the transmission of set-up data from the outstation that is
being introduced, wherein the set-up data is transmitted at a reduced rate
relative to the normal rate,” as recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or claims 3, 4, 6, and
9—11, which depend from claim 1 and incorporate the same limitation. Nor
5
Appeal 2016-000944
Application 12/295,117
do we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 as obvious in view of
Chang and Thomas, or the rejection of claim 7 as obvious in view of Chang
and Kasai because the Examiner does not rely on Thomas or Kasai to cure
the deficiency identified above.
On this record, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1,3,4, 6, and 9—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Chang, claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Chang and
Thomas, and claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Chang
and Kasai.
DECISION
For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision
to reject claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 9—11.
REVERSED
6