Appeal No. 2000-1182
Application No. 08/957,554
roughness of the cladding only to the effect that the
roughness alters the amount of light diffused through the
cladding. We agree with appellants that Ishiharada I appears
to contemplate a uniform degree of roughness along the entire
length of the waveguide. Since Ishiharada I does not clearly
disclose every feature of representative claim 1, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 11, 13 through 15, 17, 19,
24 and 25 as anticipated by the disclosure of Ishiharada I.
Next we consider the obviousness rejection of claims 20,
21, 26 and 27 over the teachings of Ishiharada I taken alone.
The examiner’s rejection fundamentally relies on an improper
interpretation of the scope of the disclosure of Ishiharada I
with respect to independent claims 1 and 15. Since Ishiharada
I fails to support the rejection of claims 1 and 15 for
reasons discussed above, the examiner, in rejecting claims 20,
21, 26 and 27 based solely on Ishiharada I, fails to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 20, 21, 26 and 27 as
formulated by the examiner.
Last we consider the obviousness rejection of claims 3
through 7 and 16 based on the combined teachings of Ishiharada
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007