Appeal No. 2003-2106
Application No. 09/604,662
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
6, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 21 through 23, the examiner is of the opinion
(answer, page 8) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to “replace the coupler output of the Figure 1
prior art with the simplified waveguide output, as taught by Leuchs
[Figure 2], to reduce the number of parts on the IOC.” The
appellants argue (reply brief, page 3) that:
The interferometer in [prior art] Figure 1 uses a
combiner 122 to combine the signals from the modulated
sections 118, 120 and produce the output 124 that emerges
as modulated optical signal 126. There is no motivation
to change that configuration. Leuchs et al. fails to
suggest any benefits in modifying the configuration of
Figure 1 to remove the combiner 122 and produce an
interference pattern instead.
We agree with the appellants’ argument. Nothing in the record
before us supports the examiner’s unsupported assertion that the
replacement of the coupler output in prior art Figure 1 would have
resulted in a reduction of the number of parts of the IOC (i.e.,
integrated optics chip). Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims
1 through 6, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 21 through 23 is reversed because
the examiner’s obviousness rationale is based on impermissible
hindsight.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007