Appeal No. 2006-1150
Application No. 10/317,585
why Kim’s backplane and common optical grating, as identified by
the examiner, are any different from those set forth in the
instant claims. Thus, appellants must be arguing the “continuity
check” portion of the statement. As far as this is concerned, we
have treated it supra, as indicative of merely an intended use
recited in the claim preamble, without any indication within the
claim body how this objective is achieved.
Accordingly, we will also sustain the rejection of claims 2,
3, 24, 25, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e).
With regard to claim 4, this claim calls for each of the
optical sources and receivers to “form an optical transceiver.”
The examiner has pointed out that elements 100a, 100b...
constitute such transceivers, since they both transmit and
receive. Again, appellants show no error in the examiner’s
rationale and, so, we will sustain the rejection of claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 (e).
Since the rejection of claims 5 and 22 are not argued
separately by appellants, we will also sustain the rejection of
claims 5 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e).
Claim 21 recites that the first optical source transmits the
optical signal in a first direction and the second optical source
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007