Ex Parte Murali - Page 2




          Appeal NO. 2005-0577                                                        
          Application No. 09/741,237                                                  


          substrate to produce an angled surface, wherein the angled surface          
          is aligned to a photonic via extending straight through the                 
          substrate to a second side of the substrate, wherein the first              
          side of the substrate is substantially parallel to the second side          
          of the substrate,                                                           
               wherein the depositing of the optical core material deposits           
          a material that has an index of refraction substantially similar            
          to that of the photonic via.                                                
               12.  A method of making a waveguide comprising:                        
               depositing an optical cladding material on the first                   
          side of a substrate;                                                        
               etching the optical cladding materials to form a wall                  
          substantially normal to the substrate; and                                  
               depositing an optical core material onto the substrate                 
          and the optical cladding material to form an angled surface,                
          wherein the angled surface is in optical alignment with a photonic          
          via that extends from the first side of the substrate straight              
          through the substrate to an opposite side of the substrate.                 




                                      REFERENCES                                      
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are1:                             
          Austin et al. (Austin)        5,200,631      Apr.  6, 1993                  
          Allman et al. (Allman)        6,324,313      Nov. 27, 2001                  

               The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:                         
          (1) Claim 1 under § 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as unpatentable over Austin.           
          1 The examiner refers to U.S. Patent 4,901,329 issued to Leas on February 1990
          in the Prior Art of Record section of the Answer.  However, the examiner does
          not rely on this reference in the statements of rejections set forth in the 
          Answer.  Accordingly, we will not consider this reference .                 
                                           2                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007