Appeal No. 2007-0400
Application 10/788,054
different pair of photodiodes 614 and 632 will be associated with each laser
(Answer 8).
The recited “monitor element” assigned to each “emission element” reads on
at least photodiode 314 in Figure 3 or on at least photodiode 614 in Figure 6.
Those photodiodes correspond to photodiode 514 in Figure 5, which determines
whether the associated laser has failed and needs to be replaced by a spare laser,
whose output power thereafter is monitored by its own associated photodiode 314
(col. 11, ll. 9-26).
Appellant’s argument (Br. 4-5) that Figure 5 shows an active laser 502 and a
spare laser 504 sharing a single pair of photodiodes (514 and 532) rather than
having respective pairs of photodiodes is also unconvincing. Figure 5 is described
as showing the operation of the control of the laser path through its optical
components (col. 9, ll. 34-35), not as showing the structural details of the
transmitter. Those structural details are instead provided by Figures 3 and 6, which
fail to show any structure that would permit two lasers to share a single pair of
photodiodes.
Appellant does not deny that claims 1 and 22 are anticipated by the
reference if, as we have held, it discloses assigning a respective pair of photodiodes
314 and 332 (or 614 and 632) to each initially active and spare laser. The rejection
is therefore affirmed as to claims 1 and 22.
The only dependent claims separately argued in the Brief are claims 11
and 20 (Br. 5-6). Claim 11 specifies that the control device comprises a memory
for storing which of the emission elements are defective. In the Final Office
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013