Appeal No. 2006-1150
Application No. 10/317,585
split into the two bidirectional signals 102a and 102b in Figure
2b. Accordingly, the first and second optical signals in this
embodiment of Kim are not transmitted from two different optical
sources.
The examiner points to column 5, line 40, of Kim for a
teaching of bidirectional signal paths, but as far as claims 23
and 29 are concerned, this portion of Kim does not teach or
suggest two different optical sources transmitting first and
second optical signals in two different directions (claim 29) in
the same optical channel (claims 23 and 29).
However, at page 4, four lines up from the bottom, of the
answer, the examiner describes the optical channel as being met
by element 32 of Kim. While element 32 is described as a
“waveguiding plate” (see column 9, lines 22-23, of Kim, for
example), it is fair for the examiner to equate element 32 to a
“channel” since Kim describes a “channel provided by optical
waveguiding plate 32" (column 9, lines 21-22). Since this
channel 32 provides for both paths 111 and 112, as described with
regard to claim 1 supra, it appears reasonable to interpret
waveguiding plate 32 as the claimed single channel over which the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007