Appeal No. 2001-0726
Application 09/272,969
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Claims 17 and 18 recite that the two active layers of
claim 15 are two of a plurality of active layer structures
disposed in a line structure or in an array structure. The
examiner cites Hara as teaching a plurality of lasers and
photodetectors disposed in an array. The examiner finds that it
would have been obvious to the artisan to use the Chinen device
in an array as taught by Hara [answer, page 3]. Appellant argues
that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Chinen
and Hara [brief, pages 13-15].
We sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 18.
As noted by the examiner, Hara teaches that it was well known to
form lasers and photodetectors in an array structure (which would
include a line structure). Appellant has offered no reason why
the artisan would not have been motivated to configure the lasers
and phototransistors of Chinen in this well known manner.
In summary, we have sustained each of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 15-18 is affirmed.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007