Appeal No. 2006-0496
Application No. 10/126,569
waveform generator.” (Answer at 7.) Instant claim 30 requires an optical detector
providing an RF repetitive waveform output responsive to the optical output signal.
As we have noted in the discussion of claims 24 through 29, supra, the rejection
fails to demonstrate the obviousness of a first and second optical coupler (Newton Fig.
8) having an RF waveform input. As such, the instant rejection fails to show prima facie
obviousness of the subject matter as a whole of independent claim 30.
Claims 35-37 -- Section 103 rejection over Newton
The examiner admits, in the new ground of rejection applied against claims 30
through 32, that Newton fails to “specifically” disclose an optical detector providing an
output responsive to the output signal. (Answer at 8.) The new ground relies on
Yamauchi for the teaching of an optical detector.
Why the Newton reference alone was applied against independent claim 35 is
unknown. The claim requires an optical detector for detecting the delay line output
signal and providing an output RF signal. Further, the claim requires an optical switch
having an input coupled to an RF modulated optical signal and an output for providing
an optical signal pulse with a predetermined duration and a waveform. As we have
noted in relation to the rejection of claim 33, supra, Newton at the least has not been
shown as describing an “optical switch” within the meaning of the claims.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007