Appeal No. 2005-2418
Application 09/932,639
claims are grouped with claim 44 and no arguments are presented
in the substance of the Brief anyway.
When we turn to the subject matter of dependent
claim 52, we sustain the rejection of this claim because of our
earlier analysis with respect to claim 30 where we indicated that
the artisan would well appreciate that multiple lasers may be
usable for each of the respective optical switches 20-1 through
20-3 in figure 4 to embody the generalized teachings of the light
emitting element 22 in figure 2. Correspondingly, however, we
must reverse the rejection of dependent claim 53 because there is
no teaching or suggestion in Endo that the multiple lasers of
claim 52 or any one of them may be tunable. Our reason for
reversing claim 53 therefore is basically the same reasoning as
we advanced earlier with respect to our reversal of claim 30.
We now turn to the features of dependent claim 56. We
find ourselves in agreement with the examiner’s reasoning at
page 9 of the Answer that the corresponding teachings relied upon
by the examiner at columns 3 and 5 of Endo teach broadly the
feature of data being transmitted in a selected one of digital
and analog formats. Appellant’s arguments at page 18 of the
Brief appear to admit that Endo describes the system of merely
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007