Appeal No. 2006-0496
Application No. 10/126,569
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ
541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
Appellants’ further argument in defense of the claims is that Newton fails to teach
or suggest a circuit for generating an optical signal having a predetermined duration, or
receiving an input optical signal of limited duration that is to be repeated a
predetermined number of times. (Brief at 19-20.) As we have noted supra in relation to
the § 102 rejection over Newton, the reference discloses a circuit for generating an
optical signal having a predetermined duration. Further, the duration of the input signal
260 is of a limited duration; i.e., at least shorter than the delay time provided by the loop
140. Newton col. 9, l. 64 - col. 10, l. 8; Fig. 9.
Since we are not persuaded that the claims have been rejected in error, we
sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 13, and 14 as being unpatentable over
Newton.
Claims 24-29 -- Section 103 rejection over Newton
Appellants submit that the examiner has failed to identify where Newton might
disclose or suggest an RF waveform generator for generating an RF waveform signal,
or an optical modulator for generating an input optical signal responsive to the RF
waveform signal, as required by independent claims 24 and 27. (Brief at 23-24.)
The examiner contends that although Newton fails to “specifically” disclose an RF
waveform generation, the reference discloses that the recirculating memory may be
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007