Appeal No. 2002-0303
Application No. 08/831,872
combination as discussed above. These arguments are not persuasive, as discussed
above. Since we find that appellants have not adequately rebutted the case of
obviousness over the combination of Kikuchi and Nagasaki, we will sustain the rejection
of independent claim 1 and the claims grouped therewith.
GROUP TWO
With respect to dependent claims 5, 10, 15, 18, 20, 23, and 31, the examiner
relied upon the teachings of Kikuchi with respect to the use of optical isolators in Figure
5 as an input medium to isolate the input. From this teaching, the examiner
extrapolates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to advantageously transmit the optical signal from one place to another
place. (See Final rejection (Paper No. 23) pages 4-5 and answer at page 5.)
Appellants argue that the examiner provides no evidence to support the rejection. (See
brief at page 26.) We agree with appellants and disagree with the examiner’s
modification of the teachings of Kikuchi wherein the examiner has used an optical
isolation teaching to suggest the use of an optical output of the serial digital signal. We
find no convincing line of reasoning and no express teaching in either reference to
support the examiner’s conclusion. Therefore, this argument by the examiner is not
persuasive, and we will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5, 10, 15, 18, 20,
23, and 31.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007