Appeal No. 2006-0496
Application No. 10/126,569
We conclude that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established for
the subject matter as a whole of independent claim 35. We do not sustain the § 103
rejection of claim 35, nor of depending claims 36 and 37, over Newton.
Claims 3, 4, 15, 16 -- Section 103 rejection over Newton
Appellants argue that Newton fails to describe that the input optical signal
comprises a “carrier signal.” (Brief at 20.)
Appellants’ specification (¶ 13) teaches that the RF modulated optical signal
provided by the optical modulator comprises an RF signal modulated on an optical
carrier. Newton teaches modulating a signal onto the light input to the device (col. 10, ll.
3-8). Input signal 260 comprises modulated light pulses as shown in Figure 9 (col. 8, l.
62 - col. 9, l. 3).
Newton thus discloses that the input optical signal comprises a carrier signal; i.e.,
an optical carrier signal onto which is modulated the binary signal described by the
reference (Fig. 9; col. 10, ll. 17-21). We therefore sustain the § 103 rejection of claims
3, 4, 15, and 16 as being unpatentable over Newton.
Claims 5-11, 17-23, 34, and 38-41 -- Section 103 rejection over Newton
Dependent claims 5-11, 17-23, and 38-41 require particular waveform signals.
We agree with appellants that the rejection based on an alleged failure to show
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007