Ex Parte Zhou et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 14, 2019

15004627 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 15/004,627 01/22/2016 142839 7590 06/18/2019 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP /Huawei Attn: IP Docketing P.O. Box 7037 Atlanta, GA 30357-0037 Lei Zhou 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. 210167.0467.8 (P473) 1407 EXAMINER SANDHU, AMRITBIR K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2636 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/18/2019 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): uspatent@huawei.com FIP _Group@bstz.com KGSPatents@wbd-us.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEI ZHOU, GUIKAI PENG, ZHENPING WANG, and YONGJIAN ZHAN 1 Appeal2018-006458 Application 15/004,627 Technology Center 2600 Before STEPHEN C. SIU, BETH Z. SHAW, AND JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as HU A WEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-006458 Application 15/004,627 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. The invention is for sending a signal. Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations italicized: 1. A method for sending a signal, the method comprising: splitting a received digital signal into a first digital signal and a second digital signal; respectively converting the first digital signal and the second digital signal into an analog in-phase signal and an analog quadrature signal; respectively modulating the analog in-phase signal and the analog quadrature signal to two optical signals that are perpendicular to each other and are in a polarization state; and after the two optical signals that are obtained through modulation, are perpendicular to each other, and are in a polarization state are combined into one optical signal, sending the optical signal to an optical network unit (ONU). REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 7-9, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over J. L. Wei et al., STUDY OF 100 GIGABIT ETHERNET USING CARRIERLESS AMPLITUDE/PHASE MODULATION AND OPTICAL OFDM, J. Lightwave Tech., 31 (2013) ("Wei"), Chang et al. (US 2010/0166423 Al, published July 1, 2010) ("Chang") and M.B. Othman et al., USING CAP DIMENSIONALITY FOR SERVICE AND USER ALLOCATION FOR OPTICAL ACCESS NETWORKS, Optical Soc'y of Am. (2012) ("Othman"). 2 Appeal2018-006458 Application 15/004,627 The Examiner rejected claims 4---6 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wei and Othman. CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own the findings set forth by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Answer. Appellants argue Wei does not respectively convert the first digital signal and the second digital signal into an analog in-phase signal and an analog quadrature signal, as claimed. App. Br. 17. Appellants argue that in Figure 1 (a) Wei describes converting a single combined digital signal into a single analog signal. Id. at 18; Reply Br. 10-11. We are unpersuaded by these arguments because as the Examiner explains, and we agree, [A]lthough figure la [of Wei] shows a first digital signal in- phase (I) and second signal quadrature (Q) are combined before they are converted into analog signal, the combined analog signal consists of in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) components as disclosed in figure 1 b . . . . Furthermore, the I and Q components are generated by ( orthogonal frequency division multiplexing) OFMD transmitter. Therefore for a single channel configuration shown in figure la when used in OFDM modem of figure 1 b the converted analog signal from the first digital signal in-phase (I) and second signal quadrature (Q) consists of analog-in-phase signal and the analog quadrature signal. Ans. 4. Thus, Appellants' argument that Wei describes converting a single combined digital signal into a single analog signal is unavailing because Wei teaches the claimed "respectively converting the first digital signal and the second digital signal into an analog in-phase signal and an analog quadrature signal," as shown in Figures la and 1 b. See id. 3 Appeal2018-006458 Application 15/004,627 We are unpersuaded by Appellants' further argument that "Wei already distinguishes between the two optical signals by using different wavelengths, thus, there is no need or suggestion to also use different polarizations." App. Br. 21. It is, Chang, not Wei alone, which the Examiner relies on to teach the claimed polarization state. Final Act. 4; Ans. 6. We find unavailing Appellants' contention that "[ a ]ny attempt to 'force fit' the structures or operations of these references [Wei and Chang] together in a combination that corresponds to the claims would result in a fundamental change in the operation of each of the described devices." App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 15. Not only is this contention unsubstantiated by any persuasive evidence on this record, it is well settled that "a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness whether a secondary reference's features can be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981 ). Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. And here, the Examiner's proposed combination uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions to yield a predictable result. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007). The Examiner's proposed combination of the cited teachings of the references is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Id. The ordinarily skilled artisan, being 4 Appeal2018-006458 Application 15/004,627 "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton," would be able to fit the teachings of the cited references together like pieces of a puzzle. Id. at 420- 21. Because Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner's proffered combination would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art," we agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we affirm the rejection of independent claims 4 and 10, for which Appellants present the same arguments. App. Br. 24, 25. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-9, and 11-13, for which Appellants present no additional arguments. Id. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv) (2009). AFFIRMED 5