Appeal 2007-2223
Application 09/975,168
invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution
encompassed by the patent's claims.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d
at 1397.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1-20
Appellants mainly argue that the multi-mode light source in Sharma
corresponds to a plurality of longitudinal modes whereas the multi-mode
network bus recited in claim 1 operates in multiple transverse modes (Br. 6).
Based on such interpretation, Appellants argue that since the number of
longitudinal modes of a light source does not typically depend on the
number of transverse modes of the bus, the multi-mode light source of
Sharma does not necessarily suggest a multimode network bus (Br. 7).
Appellants further challenge the use of the multimode fibers disclosed by
Kartalopoulos in telecommunications systems such as that of Sharma and
allege that there is not a legally sufficient justification for combining the
disclosures of Sharma and Kartalopoulos (Br. 8-11).
With respect to the multimode light source disclosed by Sharma and
whether it suggests a multimode network bus, the Examiner acknowledges
that Sharma does not disclose a multimode network bus (Answer 12).
However, the Examiner points out that the rejection is based on the
combination of Sharma with Kartalopoulos, which provides for a multimode
network bus to be used in Sharma (id.). In that regard, Appellants’
arguments (Br. 7) characterizing Sharma’s network bus as either a single
mode or a multimode bus, based on the multiple longitudinal mode
operation of the light source, does actually support the Examiner’s position
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013