Appeal No. 1999-2250
Application No. 08/980,308
means. Appellants’ second argument is that the cited prior art does not disclose or
suggest a second optical means comprising a fiber Bragg grating reflection filter having
the characteristics recited in the last paragraph of the claim.
With regard to appellants’ first argument, we disagree. It is true that claim 1
requires the fourth port to be “connected directly to the second port” of the optical
means and Figure 1 of Chawki clearly shows amplifying medium AO connected
between the fourth port and the second port so that the instant claim language would
not appear to be met by this teaching of Chawki. However, at column 5, lines 11-14, of
Chawki, the reference makes clear that in an unshown embodiment, medium AO is
“placed between the grating RN and the circulator C2 instead of between the circulator
C1 and the grating R1" [emphasis added]. Thus, in this alternative embodiment
described by Chawki, there is no amplifying medium AO between circulator C1 and the
second optical means, i.e., the fourth port of the second optical means is, indeed,
connected directly to the second port of the first optical means, as claimed.
With regard to the fiber Bragg grating reflection filter for making a refractive index
difference “with a grating period having regular intervals using light interference,” we
note that the only mention of this limitation in the original disclosure appears in
original claims 2 and 7. In any event, appellants argue that because Chawki discloses
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007