Appeal No. 2006-1150
Application No. 10/317,585
transmits the optical signal in a second direction. Appellants
contend that Kim fails to suggest this limitation while the
examiner points to column 5, line 40, of Kim.
We agree with the examiner. The identified portion of Kim
states that a function of the backplane assembly includes
“providing bidirectional signal paths for communicating or
broadcasting and rebroadcasting optical signals between
components 84.” Since bidirectional communication is clearly
provided in Kim, allowing different optical sources to transmit
in first and second directions, and appellants have not convinced
us of any reason that this cited portion of Kim should not be
read in this manner, we will sustain the rejection of claims 21
and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e).
Independent claim 23, unlike independent claim 1, requires
the transmission of an optical signal “into an optical channel
from a first optical source” and then transmitting an optical
signal from a second optical source “into said optical channel,”
i.e., into the same optical channel into which the first optical
source transmitted.
Similarly, independent claim 29 requires the same as
independent claim 23, with the additional requirement that the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007