Appeal No. 2006-0496
Application No. 10/126,569
“switch.” More important, there is no showing that the artisan would regard evanescent
field coupling, or an optical coupler, as described by Newton to constitute an “optical
switch.” We therefore cannot sustain the rejection of claim 33.
Claims 1, 2, 13, 14 -- Section 103 rejection over Newton
Instant claims 1 and 13 recite “an optical delay circuit” and “a fiber optic delay
circuit,” respectively. Appellants submit that reliance on language from the specification
to show that the claim language would have been obvious amounts to improper
hindsight reconstruction. (Brief at 18-19.)
Reference to the specification, in this instance, relates to claim interpretation
rather than obviousness. The “optical delay circuit” or “fiber optic delay circuit,” as
disclosed, comprises fiber optic delay line 15 and optical switch 16 (Fig. 2). (Brief at 2-
3; Spec. at ¶¶ 14-17.) The circuit, as disclosed and claimed, provides a delayed version
of the first coupler output as a delay circuit output. Claims 1 and 13 do not specify what
structure the respective circuits may require. Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the terms, loop 140 (Newton col. 7, ll. 23-26; col. 9, ll. 24-26; Fig. 8) is a
delay circuit within the meaning of the claims. Claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation during prosecution, and the scope of a claim cannot be
narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007