Appeal No. 2006-1150
Application No. 10/317,585
In applying Kim against independent claim 1, the examiner
points to Figures 1 and 2 of Kim, identifying 104b as the “first
optical source,” element 102c as the first optical receiver
checked, 111 as the claimed optical signal, 104c as the second
optical source from which the optical signal is transmitted, and
102b as the second optical receiver which is checked for the
optical signal. The examiner also asserts that Kim’s disclosure
relates to “continuity checking” since all of the elements are in
a “common optical grating (110) structure (20) wherein the
elements form an optical transceiver (column 6, lines 36-45 of
Kim).
Appellants do not dispute the examiner’s characterization of
Kim’s elements 104b, 102c, 11, 104c, and 102b as constituting the
claimed elements. But appellants do dispute the examiner’s
characterization of Kim as disclosing “continuity checking an
optical connection” as set forth in the instant claims. In
making their argument, appellants cite authority, at page 8 of
the principal brief, for defining “continuity check” as “checking
whether a good contact/connection exists” and, specific to the
optical field, checking “whether the optical component is
connected to the optical medium.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007