Appeal No. 2005-0783
Application No. 10/039,094
We have carefully considered the entire record in light of the
opposing positions taken by the appellants and by the examiner.
Having done so, we shall affirm all of the rejections at issue
except for rejection (5) which is reversed. The basis for our
decision is as follows:
Rejection (1)
Appellants indicate in their brief (p.6) that the instant
rejection is not contested and is accepted as proper. Accordingly,
the instant rejection is summarily affirmed.
Rejection (2)
This rejection is affirmed.
Initially, we note that the claims subject to the rejection at
issue have not been separately argued. Thus, those claims stand or
fall together for purposes of this appeal. Accordingly, we limit
our consideration to claim 1 in reviewing this rejection.
Byron shows the use of two laser beams for generating a
grating on an optical fiber waveguide. The beams are respectively
directed at two circumferentially displaced portions of the optical
fiber.
The principal point of contention concerns the scope of the
term “locality” appearing in claim 1. Since appellants’
specification ascribes no special definition to the term, we agree
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007