Appeal 2007-1851
Application 10/020,461
Appealed claims 1, 2, 15, 16, and 22-42 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bazylenko and Kyoto in view
of Dragone and the admitted prior art. Claims 1-4, 6-13, 21-26, and 29-42
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson
and Kyoto in view of Dragone and the admitted prior art.
Appellants have not presented separate arguments for claims 29-42.
Accordingly, the Examiner has properly held that claims 29-42 stand or fall
together with the remaining claims on appeal.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement 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.
We agree with the Examiner that the two primary references,
Bazylenko and Johnson, disclose, like Appellants, a method of forming a
silicate glass optical core over an undercladding using high-density plasma
deposition (HDP) in the formation of an optical waveguide. Bazylenko does
not explicitly disclose forming a plurality of silicate glass optical cores but,
from our perspective, the reference clearly would have suggested as much to
one of ordinary skill in the art. Bazylenko does expressly disclose that the
inventive method is used in preferred embodiments to form waveguide
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013