Appeal No. 2001-0726
Application 09/272,969
application does not describe any operation of the voltages
applied to the various metal contacts to achieve this electrical
decoupling. Since the disclosed structure for achieving
electrical decoupling is exactly the same as the structure
disclosed by Chinen, we find that Chinen fully meets the
invention of claim 15.
With respect to claim 16, appellant argues that Chinen
does not disclose an optical transmitter diode and an optical
receiver diode as claimed. Notwithstanding this argument, the
laser of Chinen is clearly an optical transmitter diode, and the
phototransistor is clearly an optical receiver diode. Therefore,
we find that the invention of claim 16 is also fully met by the
disclosure of Chinen.
We now consider the rejection of claims 17 and 18 based
on the teachings of Chinen and Hara. In rejecting claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to establish a
factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). In so doing, the examiner is expected to make the
factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why
one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007