Appeal No. 1998-2463 Page 6
Application No. 08/598,854
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-5 and 11
based on the teachings of Andrews in view of Appel. We begin
with claim 1. The examiner asserts (final rejection, page 2)
that Andrews fails to disclose a variable wavelength laser and
a wavelength dispersive element. To overcome these
deficiencies in Andrews, the examiner relies upon Appel for a
teaching of a controller for applying a variable signal to a
laser, and a wavelength dispersive element for receiving the
laser beam and for directing the beam onto the facet to form a
spot. The examiner concludes (id.) that “[i]t would have been
obvious to replace the laser and dispersive element in Andrews
with those of Appel et al (but still oriented as in Andrews),
to obtain a shorter wavelength switching time, and to deploy a
cheaper, passive dispersive element.”
The appellant admits (brief, page 5) that the invention
is comprised of elements described in prior art references.
The appellant asserts (brief, page 6) “[t]aken alone or in
combination there is no suggestion in Appel et al. and Andrews
to use wavelength variations for facet tracking. Appel et
al., which do teach the use of wavelength variations, do not
teach facet tracking. Andrews, which does teach facet
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007