Appeal 2007-0953
Application 10/607,466
Likewise, demultiplexed single-channel optical signals can be inputted to the
“input side” and a multiplexed optical signal can be obtained on the “output
side.”
But there is no express or inherent disclosure in McGreer that the
“output side” can also function as an “input side” with respect to at least
some of the output channel waveguides 200 such that the “output side” is
capable of outputting and inputting both multiplexed and demultiplexed
optical signals. Likewise, McGreer is silent regarding the ability of the
“input side” to function as an “output side” with respect to at least some of
the input channel waveguides 160 such that the “input side” is capable of
outputting and inputting both multiplexed and demultiplexed signals.
At best, McGreer discloses a uni-directional multiplexing and
demultiplexing capability -- not a bi-directional capability. We realize that
the term “bi-directional” appears nowhere in claim 10. But the limitations
recited in the last six lines of claim 10 setting forth the relative locations of
the input and output waveguides, along with the recited functionality of
those waveguides recited in the preamble, effectively recite a bi-directional
capability.
We reach this conclusion emphasizing that we are constrained by the
record before us. Although McGreer is structurally similar to the claimed
invention, we find no evidence on this record that establishes a bi-directional
multiplexing/demultiplexing capability for the structure of McGreer. To
conclude otherwise without supporting evidence would require us to resort
to speculation. That we will not do.
We cannot say that no prior art exists that would establish that the
structure of McGreer is capable of performing bi-directional multiplexing
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013