Appeal 2007-1280
Application 10/894,950
position with respect to Wedding at pages 13 and 14 of the principal Brief
on appeal and at pages 3 and 4 of the Reply Brief is that this reference is
directed merely to an optical system and not from an electrical system to an
optical system, that the reference does not teach what the Examiner asserts
that it does teach and that the reference does not teach the conversion from
optical to electrical to optical. This conversion process has been discussed
earlier in this opinion and has already been indicated to have been taught in
Lenormand. Even though Wedding does relate to an optical receiver
according to its title, the reference never identifies any optical components
and does not characterize any signal as an optical signal to perform any
stated or implied function. The various flip flops in figures 2 and 4, for
example, would have been interpreted by the artisan as relating to the
processing of electrical signals. It appears to us that the artisan would well
appreciate from the discussion at column 1 of Wedding that he describes that
an optical receiver receives optical energy such as from an optical fiber
cable system and converts the information to electrical energy by the use of
receiving photodiodes mentioned specifically at lines 29 and 43 for later
processing in the reference.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1 through 3, 9, 10, 12 through 17, and 19 through 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 in various rejections is sustained, but is reversed as to dependent claim
11. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013