Appeal 2007-1312
Application 10/997,715
(f) claim 17 over Bazylenko in view of Dragone, Shieh, Liu,
Rossmann, and Narita.
With the exception of claims 20 and 29, Appellant does not set forth
an argument that is reasonably specific to particular claims on appeal.
Accordingly, with the noted exceptions, all the appealed claims stand or fall
together with claim 1. Also, with the exception of the rejections of claims
20 and 29, we will limit our consideration to the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we fully concur with the Examiner that the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
For the reasons discussed in our Decision involving the related appeal
(Appeal 2007-1851), we find that the applied prior art establishes the
obviousness of forming an optical waveguide by depositing an
undercladding layer over a substrate, forming a plurality of separated optical
cores over the undercladding layer which define a sequence of gaps between
the cores, and depositing an uppercladding layer within the gaps and over
the plurality of cores. Also, Appellant has not contested the Examiner’s
legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013