Appeal No. 1997-3303 Page 6
Application No. 08/171,126
of a waveguide cladding. The examiner takes the position (answer, page 7) that claim 12 does not
recite cladding material, and that “formation of a grating by periodically modulating the index of
refraction of a cladding material” is not found in any of the claims.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker
Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations appearing in the
specification are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985).
We are in agreement with the examiner that appellants do not claim “formation of a grating by
periodically modulating the index of refraction of a cladding material.” Claim 12 is drawn to a method
for the fabrication of a laser structure including wavelength selective electro-optic grating. The claim is
not drawn to the operation of the fabricated device. While we are cognizant that in operation, the index
of refraction of a cladding material or the waveguide itself is modulated to alter the wavelength of the
generated light in the feedback region, these limitations do not appear in the claims pending before us
on appeal. Appellants further assert that absent from Sakata is a teaching of periodicity being
established by means of conducting media strip lines through which current is passed or an electric field
established between the lines. We note that this limitation regarding media strip lines is not found in
claim 12, nor in any of appellants’ claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007