Appeal No. 1999-2250
Application No. 08/980,308
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
With regard to independent claim 1, it is the examiner’s position that Chawki
discloses the claimed subject matter but for the fiber Bragg grating reflection filter
having a grating period with regular intervals.
The examiner points to Figure 1 of Chawki and identifies C1 as the claimed “first
optical means,” and the combination of AO and MS as the claimed “second optical
means.” The examiner employs Painchaud for the teaching of making Bragg grating
filters, specifically identifying column 3, lines 23 et seq. for the proposition that the
period P of the fiber Bragg grating is changeable by controlling the tilt angle and the
beam incidence angle, concluding that these angles can be fixed and that it is
“possible” the period P has regular intervals [answer-page 4].
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Chawki’s
“device to include the fiber Bragg grating having a regular intervals period to select
single wavelength” [sic, answer-page 4].
Appellants’ response is a twofold argument. First, appellants argue, the cited
prior art does not disclose or suggest an optical wavelength filter wherein a second
optical means has a fourth port connected directly to the second port of a first optical
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007