Ex Parte Rosen et al - Page 9



              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