Appeal No. 1997-3303 Page 7
Application No. 08/171,126
The examiner asserts (answer, page 9) that “Sakata teaches every limitation of claim 12 save
for the grating shaped electrodes.” We disagree. The examiner states (answer, page 3) that “Sakata
teaches . . . forming an n-type contact layer (102), a waveguide layer (103), a second n-type contact
layer (104) and an active layer (105).” To this extent, we agree with the examiner. However, the next
step set forth in the method of claim 12, step (e), requires “selectively etching the active layer down to
the waveguide layer in a region of the structure designed for formation of a grating.” We find that in
Sakata, while active layer (105) is removed by etching, the etching process does not etch down to the
waveguide layer as claimed. In order to reach the waveguide (103), the cladding layer (104), which
the examiner relies upon as the second n-type layer, would also have to be etched away in the region of
the structure designed for formation of a grating. This is not done in Sakata, who does not expose
waveguide (103). Accordingly, step (e) of method claim 12 is also not met by Sakata. In addition,
step (f) of the method of claim 12 sets forth depositing a conductive material on the resultant structure,
which is the waveguide (103). As there is no etching of the cladding layer (104) down to the
waveguide (103), there is also no depositing of a conductive material on the surface of the waveguide
after etching away the active layer and the second n-type layer to expose the waveguide. Additionally,
we note that the conductive layer that is deposited on the waveguide in step (f) of the method of claim
12 is the same conductive layer that forms the electrodes in the shape of a grating in step (g).
Accordingly, step (f) of the method of claim 12 is also not met by Sakata. With regard to step (g) of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007