Appeal No. 96-3813
Application No. 08/248,937
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for all of claims 1, 3, and 11 through 23.
Appellants further argue (Brief, page 4) that "Nobuhara
teaches removing the optical fiber cladding in the region of
the coupling," whereas "Applicants teach and claim an
invention using waveguides with the cladding intact." We
agree that Nobuhara removes the cladding in the coupling area,
but we see no such limitation in claim 1, the first
independent claim. As to independent claims 14 and 19, each
recites that the grating is between the cladding of the
dielectric waveguide and either the cladding of the
semiconductor waveguide or the core of the dielectric
waveguide. Since Nobuhara teaches removing the cladding at
the grating (as pointed out by appellants) and Laybourn shows
the cladding around the dielectric waveguide up to, but not
at, the grating, neither reference has the grating adjacent
the cladding for the dielectric waveguide. Although the
examiner is correct in stating (Answer, page 7, and
Supplemental
Answer, pages 3-4) that waveguides have cladding, the examiner
has ignored the disclosures of the references relied upon.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007