Appeal No. 2006-0496
Application No. 10/126,569
Claims 12, 33 -- Section 102 rejection over Newton
Appellants argue (Brief at 14-15), with respect to claim 12, that Newton fails to
disclose a circuit for generating an optical signal having a predetermined duration.
Appellants acknowledge that Newton discloses a laser light source 150, a modulator
152 (Figs. 5 and 8), and an input signal 160 (Fig. 6).
Newton discloses an input signal 260 of modulated light pulses shown in Figure
9, which is identical to the input signal 160 shown in Figure 6. The input signal is
supplied to the input end 132 of the optical fiber 130 at time T1 from laser light source
150 and modulator 152. Col. 8, l. 62 - col. 9, l. 3. The duration of the input signal 260 is
predetermined to be shorter than the delay time provided by the loop 140. Col. 9, l. 64 -
col. 10, l. 8; Figs. 6 and 9. We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 12.
Appellants argue that Newton fails to teach the claim 33 requirement of an optical
switch for controlling the output optical signal to have the recited duration. (Brief at 15-
16). In the examiner’s view, the evanescent field coupling in the optical couplers
described by Newton meets the requirements of an optical switch. “By transferring the
signal between strands, the signal is moved from one strand from another, for example,
from [strand] 12a to strand 12b.” (Answer at 10.) We agree. “When the signal is
moved from [strand] 12a to 12b, the signal is transferred or switched to the other
strand.” (Id.)
Even if we agree that the signal is “switched” to the other strand, the rejection
fails to show that transference of the signal to another strand represents any type of
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007