Ex Parte Kishima - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-0873                                                        
          Application 10/067,347                                                      
               The appealed claims relate to an optical coupling device               
          which comprises an optical lens placed between a light emitting             
          device and an optical fiber.  The manufacture of the optical                
          coupling device is illustrated in figures 3a through 3d.  The               
          lens substrate 10 of optical material is coated with a mask layer           
          MS.  The mask layer is composed of photoresist.  The mask layer             
          is photographically exposed and then subjected to a heat-                   
          treatment which leaves a plurality of mask layer portions having            
          curved surfaces as shown in figure 3c.  When the structure in               
          figure 3c is etched, an optical lens array having a plurality of            
          convex portions 11a through 11d is created, as shown in figure              
          3d.                                                                         
               The claimed subject matter may be further understood with              
          reference to the appealed claims appended to appellant’s brief.1            
               The references of record relied upon by the examiner as                
          evidence of anticipation and obviousness are:                               
               Knapp et al. (Knapp)     5,768,456      Jun. 16, 1998                  
               Althaus et al. (Althaus) 6,434,297 B1   Aug. 13, 2002                  
                              Grounds of Rejection                                    
               Claims 50 through 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)           
          as anticipated by Althaus.                                                  


          1  We note that an amendment entered after final rejection                  
          corrects a typographical error in claim 65.                                 
                                          2                                           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007