Appeal No. 1996-2991
Application 08/302,931
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10-14, 16 and 17, which
constitute all the claims remaining in the application.
Representative claim 10 is illustrative of the claims on
appeal.
10. A method of producing an optical device comprising
spacially modulating the refractive index of a portion formed
of a glass which contains B O and at least one of SiO and GeO2 3 2 2
so as to produce a pattern of refractive index variations,
wherein said modulating is carried out by exposing said
portion to a modulated intensity of radiation which accesses
the absorption band having a peak close to 240nm whereby the
intensity pattern of the radiation is reproduced as the
refractive index pattern in said portion.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Legoubin, S. et al. (Legoubin), “Formation of Moire Grating in
Core of Germanosilicate Fiber by Transverse Holographic Double
Exposure Method,” Electronics Letters, Vol. 27, No. 21, pp.
1945-47 (Oct. 10, 1991)
Farries, et al.(Farries) WO 90/08973 Aug. 9,
1990
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b)as being anticipated by Legoubin . The2
examiner rejects claims 7, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 under 35
As a note in passing, we observe that dependent claim 11 appears not2
to further restrict, but in fact broadens, in contradiction to 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, fourth paragraph, parent claim 10 by reciting a band or range of
wavelengths of which there is only a single specified wavelength recited in
claim 10.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007