Appeal 2007-1059
Application 10/408,598
wavelengths.5 (Finding of Fact 7.) We find that the Examiner has provided
ample corroborating evidence to support that a photodetector has the ability
to detect and monitor the power in a wavelength of a signal. Further, we are
not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that a photodetector is not equivalent
to a power monitor. (Reply Br. 2.) Appellants’ submission of alleged
supporting evidence6 in the Reply Brief is deemed to have been untimely
filed. Therefore, we have not considered the submitted evidence in deciding
the current issue before us. See 37 CFR § 41.41(a)(2).
In light of these findings, it is our reasoned conclusion that Urino
teaches the limitation of directing an extracted diffraction order of a signal to
a power monitor. It follows that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
independent claim 1 and claims 2 through 16 grouped therewith by
Appellants, as being anticipated by Urino.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
has failed to establish that Urino anticipates claims 1 through 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
DECISION
We have affirmed the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through
16.
5 Cf. Specification 4: 10-12, describing a detector array 20 that measures
power; instant claim 16, reciting a detector array to detect power.
6 We note in passing that even if the submitted evidence were
considered, Appellants’ arguments would still be unpersuasive. The
submitted evidence provides a definition for “power meter” whereas the
claims at issue call for a “power monitor”. The evidence therefore fails to
establish that a “power meter” is the same as the claimed “power monitor”,
and that said monitor is different from a photodetector.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013