Appeal No. 1999-2250
Application No. 08/980,308
redundant channels of first and second optical means. No advantages are taught or
argued by appellants that would not naturally flow from the duplication of elements
taught by Chawki.
However, the demultiplexer of claim 6 does not merely duplicate the elements of
the filter of claim 1. Claim 6 specifically requires that each fifth port be connected
directly to the first port of “another corresponding first optical device” and that there be a
passing of “other wavelength components of the respective input optical signal directly
to said first port of said another corresponding first optical device connected directly to
the fifth port.” Accordingly, there is a specific interconnection between the various units
of first and second optical devices, a concatenation which is simply not shown or
suggested by the applied references.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 6 under 35
U.S. C. § 103.
Claims 7-9 stand with independent claim 6 but, even so, these claims contain the
“grating periods having regular intervals” limitation, and we will not sustain the rejection
of these claims under 35 U.S. C. § 103 for the reasons supra.
Appellants do not separately argue the limitations of claim 10 but it will stand with
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007