Appeal No. 96-3896
Application No. 08/152,315
Opinion
After consideration of the positions and arguments
presented by both the examiner and the appellant, we have
concluded that the rejection of claims 6 and 8 over DeLange in
view of Glomb should not be sustained, that the rejection of
claim 6 over Hepner in view of Glomb should not be sustained
but that the rejection of claim 8 over Hepner in view of Glomb
should be sustained.
With respect to the rejection of claims 6 and 8 over
DeLange and Glomb, the filters 13 and 32 of DeLange=s device,
Figures 2 and 5, respectively, pass a single wavelength and
reflect all others. In contrast, the Bragg grating filter of
Glomb, having a narrow stopband 22, passes most wavelengths
and reflects a narrow band of wavelengths. Such being the
case, there is no motivation to substitute the Bragg grating
filter of Glomb for each of the filters disclosed in DeLange
because with the Bragg grating filters disclosed in Glomb,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007