Appeal 2007-0953
Application 10/607,466
a second sub-waveguide, continuously joined to the first sub-
waveguide, whose width gradually decreases in the progressing direction of
the optical signal passing through the first sub-waveguide, wherein the input
waveguide, comprising the first and second sub-waveguides, is respectively
disposed on both sides of the substrate centering on the arrayed waveguide
grating, an the output waveguides arranged in parallel with the input
waveguide are respectively disposed on both sides of the substrate centering
on the arrayed waveguide grating.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
McGreer US 6,563,988 B2 May 13, 2003
The Examiner’s rejection is as follows:
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)2 as being
anticipated by McGreer.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Brief and the Answer3 for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
2 Although the Examiner rejected the claims under § 102(b), the cited
reference actually qualifies as prior art under §§ 102(a) and (e) -- not
§ 102(b) -- since the filing date of the present application is Jun. 26, 2003
and the reference’s publication date is May 13, 2003. In any event, we
consider this procedural error harmless as it does not affect the merits of the
anticipation rejection on appeal.
3 An Appeal Brief was initially filed on Jan. 24, 2005, and an Examiner’s
Answer was initially filed on Apr. 21, 2005. On Dec. 30, 2005, the Board
issued an order indicating, among other things, that the brief was defective.
In response, a second Appeal Brief was filed on Jan. 9, 2006 and a second
Examiner’s Answer filed Apr. 3, 2006. We refer to the second Brief and the
second Answer respectively throughout this opinion.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013