Ex Parte Tan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2017

12812937 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 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.
12/812,937 07/14/2010 Michael Renne Ty Tan 82238144 2214
56436 7590 06/21/2017
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
JORDAN, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL RENNE TY TAN, SHIH-YUAN WANG, and
PAUL KESSLER ROSENBERG
Appeal 2015-006913
Application 12/812,937
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 7, 10, 12—18, 20, 22—27, and 29-32.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appeal 2015-006913
Application 12/812,937
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an optical interconnect.
Claims 1, 12, and 25 are illustrative and reproduced below:
1. An optical interconnect comprising:
a laser configured to output an optical signal;
a laser driver electronically coupled to the laser, wherein
the laser driver induces the laser to output the optical signal in
response to an electrical signal received by the laser driver;
a diffractive optical element positioned to receive the
optical signal and configured to split the optical signal into a
plurality of approximately identical optical signals received by a
focusing optical element comprising a Fresnel lens surface and
an opposing surface having a plurality of piano convex lenses;
and
a photodetector array, wherein each photodetector of the
photo detector array converts one of the plurality of optical
signals into an electrical signal that is output on a separate signal
line.
12. An optical interconnect comprising:
a plurality of lasers, each laser configured to emit a
corresponding optical signal, the optical signals of the lasers
being emitted parallel to each other;
a plurality of lasers drivers, each laser driver electronically
coupled to one of the plurality of lasers such that each laser driver
induces a corresponding laser to emit the corresponding optical
signal in response to an electrical signal received by the laser
driver;
a plurality of separate electronic devices, each separate
electronic device connected to one of the laser drivers, the
electronic devices supplying the electrical signal to the laser
drivers;
a focusing element positioned to receive the plurality of
parallel optical signals and direct them to a diffraction optical
element to output a single optical signal; and
a photo detector that converts the single optical signal into
a single electrical signal that is output on a signal line.
2
Appeal 2015-006913
Application 12/812,937
25. An optical interconnect system comprising:
an electronic device;
a stack of electronic devices;
a fan-out interconnect interposed between the electronic
device and the stack, the fan-out interconnect comprising:
a single laser configured to output an optical signal;
a diffractive optical element positioned to receive the
optical signal and configured to split the optical signal into
a plurality of approximately identical optical signals; and
a photodetector array, wherein each photodetector of
the photo detector array converts one of the plurality of
approximately identical optical signals into an electrical
signal that is output on a separate signal line of one of the
electronic devices in the stack; and
a fan-in interconnect comprising:
a plurality of lasers, each laser configured to emit a
corresponding optical signal;
a plurality of laser drivers, each laser driver
electronically coupled to one of the plurality of lasers such
that each laser driver induces a corresponding laser to emit
the corresponding optical signal in response to an electrical
signal received by the laser driver from one of the
electronic devices in the stack;
a single focusing element positioned to receive the
plurality of optical signals and output a single optical
signal; and
a photo detector that converts the single optical
signal into a single electrical signal that is output on a signal
line.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Kato
Chakravorty
Benner
Schreder
US 5,394,490 Feb. 28, 1995
US 2003/002770 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
US 2005/0147365 A1 July 7, 2005
US 2006/0171033 A1 Aug. 3, 2006
3
Appeal 2015-006913
Application 12/812,937
Otsuka JP 362134602A June 17, 1987
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection1:
1. Claims 1, 10, 12—16, 18, 20, 22—24, 26, 27, and 32 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benner in view of
Kato, Otsuka, and Schreder.
2. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Benner in view of Kato, Otsuka, Schreder, and
Chakravorty.
3. Claims 25 and 29-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Benner in view of Kato.
We reverse the stated rejections for substantially the reasons argued
by Appellants in the Briefs.
Rejection 1
Independent claim 1 requires that the optical interconnect includes,
inter alia, “a diffractive optical element” that is “positioned to receive the
optical signal” output of a laser “and configured to split the optical signal
into a plurality of approximately identical optical signals received by a
focusing optical element comprising a Fresnel lens surface and an opposing
surface having a plurality of piano convex lenses” (claim 1).
The Examiner finds that Benner fails to disclose, inter alia, a focusing
optical element comprising a Fresnel lens surface and an opposing surface
having a plurality of piano convex lenses (Final Act. 5—6).
The Examiner finds that (Final Act. 7):
1 A rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph has been
withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 2).
4
Appeal 2015-006913
Application 12/812,937
Otsuka discloses a photoelectric switch that includes
(Figs. 1, 2, and 4) a spherical contoured Fresnel lens (the
individual prisms are curved) with regularly-spaced partial
lenses (considered to be prisms) that faces both towards (Figs. 1
and 4) and away from (Figs. 1 and 2) the parallel-ray direction.
Otsuka serves to address a wide beam width as from a dispersive
transmission source.
The Examiner finds that (Final Act. 6—7):
Schreder discloses a method for producing an optical
component, optical component produced according to the
method and devices comprising such components that include a
variety of lens combinations. Particularly, Schreder provides a
number of microlens structures (Figs. 22-25) that aid in multilens
systems. The planoconvex microlens array of Fig. 22 serves to
address individual areas of a larger beam distribution.
The Examiner reasons that (Final Act. 7):
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of Applicant's invention to address broad
transmissions together with individual areas (such as for
receivers) along the lines of Otsuka and Schreder in a system
according to Benner in view of Kato as set forth above in order
to mediate broad transmission diameters from one side of a star
coupling system such as Benner with the individual receivers on
the reception side of such an optical network.
In so doing, combining prior art elements according to
known methods to yield predictable results would occur. MPEP
§ 2141 (III).
Otsuka is cited by the Examiner for teaching a photoelectric switch
including a Fresnel lens surface and the Examiner relies on Schreder for
teaching microlens structures that aid in multilens systems. As argued by
Appellants, the Examiner has not established that the aforementioned
references together with the other applied references teaches or suggests a
5
Appeal 2015-006913
Application 12/812,937
focusing element having a Fresnel lens surface on one side and an opposing
surface having a plurality of piano convex lenses, as required by claim 1
(App. Br. 13—15).
Thus, the Examiner has not carried the burden to establish that the
applied references, in combination, would have suggested a focusing
element as called for in claim 1, much less such a focusing element arranged
as required with the other recited interconnect elements as set forth by claim
1 for reasons substantially as argued by Appellants (App. Br. 13—15; Reply
Br. 4-8).
Independent claim 12 requires an optical interconnect including, inter
alia, plural lasers with each laser being configured to emit an optical signal
wherein the optical signals are emitted parallel to each other, and a focusing
element that is positioned to receive the plurality of optical signals and direct
them to a diffraction optical element to output a single optical signal (claim
12).
Concerning independent claim 12, the Examiner relies on the same
combination of references in maintaining the stated rejection and finds that
the applied references teach an optical interconnect including, inter alia:
(Final Act. 8—9)
a focusing element positioned to receive the plurality of
parallel optical signals (the Otsuka/Schreder lens combination
provides such optical operation at least on the Schreder
microlens side of the combination) and direct them to a
diffraction optical element (Benner, Fig. 6, DOE 32, 39-40) to
output a single optical signal (Benner, Figs. 6 and 7); and
a photo detector that converts the single optical signal into
a single electrical signal that is output on a signal line (Benner,
139, “a photodetector”).
6
Appeal 2015-006913
Application 12/812,937
For reasons argued by Appellants, however, the Examiner has not
established that Figures 6 and/or 7 of Benner teach or suggest a focusing
element positioned to receive a plurality of parallel optical signals; that is,
optical signals being emitted parallel to each other from a plurality of lasers,
which focusing element directs the signals to a diffraction optical element to
output a single optical signal, as required by claim 12 (App. Br. 18—20). Nor
has the Examiner established that the other applied references make up for
this shortcoming in the Examiner’s application of the teachings of Benner to
the subject matter of claim 12 for reasons argued by Appellants (Final Act.
8; Ans. 6; see App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 10—12).
It follows that we reverse Rejection 1.
Rejection 2
The Examiner does not articulate how Chakravorty, the additional
reference applied in the separate obviousness rejection of dependent claims
7 and 17, which is relied on for suggesting certain features pertaining to
these dependent claims obviates the deficiencies in the base Rejection 1
(Final Act. 15—16).
Accordingly, we reverse Rejection 2.
Rejection 3
Independent claim 25 is directed to an optical interconnect system that
includes, inter alia, a specified fan-out interconnect interposed between an
electronic device and a stack of electronic devices, as well as a specified fan-
in interconnect.
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Benner teaches a fan-out
interconnect in Figure 5, a fan-out interconnect in Figure 6, and a
combination thereof in Figure 7, wherein the claimed “an electronic device”
7
Appeal 2015-006913
Application 12/812,937
and “a stack of electronic devices” are considered inherent in the Benner
interconnect system and wherein Kato teaches a laser driver (Final Action
17—19; Benner || 34, 35, 39; Figs. 5—7; Kato, Fig. 12).
As argued by Appellants, however, the Examiner has not carried the
burden to establish that Benner inherently describes a stack of electronic
devices based on the applied disclosures of Benner (App. Br. 24). Nor has
the Examiner otherwise carried the burden to articulate how the applied
teachings of Benner taken with Kato would have taught or suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art subject matter required by claim 25, including the
particularly specified fan-out interconnect interposed between the electronic
device and the stack, and including the particularly specified fan-in
interconnect for reasons substantially as argued by Appellants (App. Br. 24—
26; Reply Br. 15—19).
Accordingly, we reverse Rejection 3.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
8