Appeal No. 2001-2134
Application No. 09/101,276
that while Wong is directed to a splitter, it is “well within the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art to use such a
device as a combiner, since they are interchangeable in the art
for the purpose of transmitting a series of light beams as
information to and from different locations” [answer-page 3].
The examiner then applies O’Shaughnessy for the teaching of
coupling a fiber bundle output, using a lens 50 into a
photodetector 28, and concludes that it would have been obvious
“to use the Wong system in concert with the teachings of the
O’Shaughnessy...lens and detector, in order to provide a
plurality of signals from a plurality of locations to a single
receiving station” [answer-page 3].
We reverse.
Appellants dispute the examiner’s allegation that the
artisan would have recognized that the splitter of Wong may be
formed as a combiner and that it would have been obvious to do
so. While appellants admit that, in general, a splitter and
combiner are interchangeable, they contend that it is “not true
that a low-loss 1xN splitter will, in general, function in the
reverse direction as a low-loss Nx1 combiner” [principal brief-
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007