Appeal No. 2006-2229
Application 10/347,069
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner,
reference is made to the brief and reply brief for appellants’ positions, and to
the answer for the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer, as expanded
upon here, we sustain the rejection of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102. In the brief and reply brief, appellants argue independent claims 12
and 19 together, with an emphasis upon independent claim 12. No other
claim on appeal is argued before us.
As repeatedly indicated in the answer, the examiner considers
Tangonan’s substrate to comprise plural elements/portions 10, 12 and 18.
The examiner also considers substrate region 10 as having a base refractive
index, whereas regions 12 and 18 are said to have different refractive
indices.
The claimed “a substrate” is not stated in the claims on appeal to be of
single piece construction, notwithstanding appellants’ repeated arguments in
the brief and reply brief to that effect. Contrary to appellants’ position at
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007