Appeal No. 2006-1150
Application No. 10/317,585
first and second optical sources transmit first and second
optical signals in different directions.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 23 and
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e). We will also sustain the rejection
of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as this claim is not argued
separately from the others by appellants.
The only mention appellants make of claims 5, 27, and 32, is
that these claims “teach a continuity check for the optical
transceiver where each optical signal may be two different data
values” not taught by Kim (principal brief-page 7). But the
examiner points out that column 7, line 55, of Kim anticipates
this limitation because the term “optical signals” is plural,
indicating that there are two signals and thus two values, i.e.,
a first data value followed by a second data value.
Appellants argue that the propagated signals recited at that
portion of Kim refer to whatever is transmitted by the
transmitters and not the content of what is being transmitted
(reply brief-page 3). We disagree. If signals are propagated,
as disclosed by Kim, then those signals contain data, and that
“data,” i.e., content, is transmitted, as claimed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007