Ex Parte McIntyre et al - Page 5

              Appeal 2007-2202                                                                                           
              Application 10/608,169                                                                                     

              prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his                     
              claimed product.").  See also In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708-09, 15 USPQ2d 1655,                           
              1657-58 (Fed. Cir. 1990).                                                                                  
                                                     ANALYSIS                                                            
                     Anticipation rejection based upon Huber.                                                            
                     Appellants argue, on page 5 of the Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection under                       
              35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Huber is in error.  Appellants reason that “[t]he                              
              grating 18 of Huber is a mirror that depends on the physical alteration on the                             
              period of the grating to determine the wavelength of light that is reflected by the                        
              laser” and as such does not meet the claimed resonator.  (Brief 5-6.)                                      
                     The Examiner responds, on page 8 of the Answer, stating:                                            
                     The grating 18 constitutes a partially transmitting mirror which is an integral                     
                     part of the optical fiber laser 17, which by definition is a resonator.                             
                     Generally, a resonator is a device that under certain conditions achieves a                         
                     specific operational condition, the so called resonance condition. It is noted                      
                     that Appellant has not provided a definition or a description of what a                             
                     "resonator" is, other than stating in couple occasions that "Used as a switch,                      
                     a photonic resonator can be turn on, i.e., permit the passage of light of a                         
                     certain frequency, or turned off, i.e., not allow the passage of light of a                         
                     certain frequency', see [00002] of Disclosure. Huber's laser is an optical                          
                     resonator, which depending on certain parameters, such as the physical                              
                     properties of the optical cavity (comprising mirror 14, partial mirror/grating                      
                     18 and the length of optical fiber 16 between said two mirrors), achieves                           
                     resonance condition for lasing, i.e., emitting light of specific only                               
                     wavelength/frequency.                                                                               
                     Appellants address the Examiner’s response by arguing “Huber does [not]                             
              vary the refractive index of a resonator, but changes the grating spacing of a laser                       
              cavity by heating piezoelectric means.  It does not teach a color selection by                             
              changing the refractive index of a resonator.”  (Reply Brief 2.)                                           

                                                           5                                                             


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013