Appeal No. 1996-2991
Application 08/302,931
U.S.C. § 103 in light of the collective teachings of Legoubin
and Farries .3
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Generally for the reasons expressed by appellants in the
brief and reply brief, we reverse the rejection of the
respective claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. However, we agree
with the examiner's views as to claims 12 through 14 within
the rejection of 35 U.S.C. § 103 and extend that rejection
under the provisions
of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) to claims 10, 11 and 17.
Turning first to the rejection of independent claims 1
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as to claim 1, we disagree with
the examiner's views and interpret this claim consistent with
In light of the examiner's comment at the top of page 4 of the answer3
that in claims 12-14, the recitation “said reflection waveguide” should be
interpreted as “said reflection grating,” we have so construed the claim in
our deliberations and conclude that such was an inadvertent oversight since
the examiner's view is consistent with the other language recited in each of
these respective claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007