Appeal No. 1997-3303 Page 8
Application No. 08/171,126
the method of claim 12, the examiner states (answer, page 4) that “Sakata does not teach to make a
top electrode in the shape of a grating.” Accordingly, step (g) of the method of claim 12 is also not met
by Sakata.
The examiner relies upon Okai for a suggestion of fabricating electrodes in the form of a grating.
The examiner asserts (answer, page 4) that in Okai, electrode (107) is patterned in the shape of a
grating in the feedback region (113). Appellants assert (rbrief, page 10) that the separate electrodes
are used to vary the light intensity distribution in feedback region (113), but that while the electrodes
look like a grating, they are not. The examiner responds (answer, page 8) by noting that all that is
claimed is that the electrodes are in the shape of a grating. From our review of claim 12, we note that
the language found in the preamble “including a wavelength selectable electro-optic grating” cannot be
ignored as we find that it breathes life and meaning into the claim by defining characteristics of the
grating that is being fabricated. We find, however, that Okai does meet the requirement that the
electrodes patterned into the shape of a grating that provides electro-optic wavelength selection. Okai
discloses (col. 2, lines 18-36 ) that the feedback region is optically coupled with the active region for
varying the wavelength of the fed-back light by a plurality of structural parameters. The perturbation
portion is one of the structural parameters. In addition, the intensity of the electric field applied to the
feedback region is another of the structural parameters. By combining these parameters, the
wavelength range is enlarged. This occurs because of coupling of the light propagated in the feedback
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007