Appeal No. 2003-2106
Application No. 09/604,662
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 11 and 13) and
the answer (paper number 12) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and
we will sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 20, and reverse
all of the rejections of claims 1 through 19 and 21 through 24.
Turning first to the anticipation rejection of claims 20 and
24, appellants argue (brief, page 5; reply brief, page 5) that
Geary does not disclose “detecting a location of a null of the
interference pattern” (claim 20), and an output signal “measured to
determine the phase difference between two input optical signal”
(claim 24). We agree with the examiner’s contention (answer, page
4) that the dark fringe detected by detector A in Geary is a null
(Figures 1 and 2; column 4, lines 60 through 66; column 5, lines 30
through 34). On the other hand, we agree with the appellants’
argument that Geary is silent as to measuring a phase difference
between two optical signals. Thus, the anticipation rejection of
claim 20 is sustained, and the anticipation rejection of claim 24
is reversed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007