Ex Parte McIntyre et al - Page 6

              Appeal 2007-2202                                                                                           
              Application 10/608,169                                                                                     

                     Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s                              
              rejection.  We find that the Examiner’s determination that Huber’s laser and                               
              grading meets the claimed resonator to be reasonable.  Neither of the independent                          
              claims recite a color selection based upon changing a refractive index of a                                
              resonator.  While claim 1 is in means-plus-function format, the resonator limitation                       
              is not in means-plus-function format.  While Appellants’ Specification may                                 
              describe the resonator as being a device which can perform such functions, we do                           
              not consider the claim to be limited to a device that performs such functions.  Thus,                      
              Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding that the laser                         
              of Huber meets the claimed resonator.                                                                      
                     Appellants further argue, on page 7 of the Brief:                                                   
                     [C]laims 1 and 7 recite that a temperature/frequency pair is retrieved from a                       
                     logic device, and the temperature of the resonator is adjusted to that                              
                     temperature in order to precisely control the frequency selected by the                             
                     photonic circuit. Huber refers to a laser, not a photonic switch, and hence                         
                     does not disclose the precise control of the present invention, but is only                         
                     concerned with maintaining the wavelength within a laser's gain bandwidth.                          
                     See Huber col. 1, lines 40-45. Moreover, Huber does not disclose either a                           
                     processor or a memory such as disclosed and claimed by the present                                  
                     invention for the precise control of selected frequencies.                                          
              On page 8 of the Brief, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s finding that Huber                            
              inherently uses logic is in error.  Appellants reason that “the ‘simplest form’ of                         
              logic put forth as an example in the Office Action does not include a logical                              
              handling of light frequencies, but only a comparison to determine if a measured                            
              temperature is equal to a set temperature.”                                                                
                     In response, the Examiner states that the claim does not recite a limitation                        
              directed to a photonic switch.  (Answer 9.)  Further, the Examiner finds that the                          


                                                           6                                                             


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

Last modified: September 9, 2013