Appeal No. 2006-1150
Application No. 10/317,585
Since the examiner has shown how elements of Kim meet the
four method steps claimed, and such is not disputed by
appellants, to whatever extent these method steps achieve a
“continuity checking” in appellants’ invention, they must also
achieve that result in Kim.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e).
With regard to claims 2 and 3, appellants merely
state that:
Kim does not teach a continuity check for the
optical transceiver with both optical sources
and both optical receivers that may be at a
common optical grating and that may be located
adjacent to an optical channel in an optical
backplane, as recited in claims... 2 and 3 and
further in claims 24, 25, 30 and 31 (principal
brief-page 7).
It is not clear exactly what part of this statement is being
emphasized by appellants. The examiner has pointed out that the
elements are “in a common optical grating (110) structure (20)”
and that the “common optical grating structure is located
adjacent a backplane optical channel...” (answer-page 4), and
specifically points to column 6, lines 36-45, and column 8, lines
17-25, of Kim. Appellants have not shown any error in this
portion of the examiner’s rationale and appellants have not shown
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007