Appeal 2007-1851
Application 10/020,461
structures and waveguides(note the plural form) (see col. 2, ll. 40 and 44),
and the reference also discloses that the method is suitable “in fabricating
any type of device which combines optics with electronics in an integrated
form” (col. 3, ll. 5-7). As a result, we are persuaded that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have reasonably understood the Bazylenko method was
suitable for forming a plurality of silicate glass optical cores, as presently
claimed.
The obviousness of forming such a plurality of cores is further
supported by Dragone’s multiplexer which uses a plurality of optical cores.
Appellants’ arguments notwithstanding, the Examiner properly points out
that the claims on appeal do not require a waveguide that has multiple cores
and that Appellants’ Specification discloses that the present invention is
directed to making multiplexers. Hence, the appealed claims broadly
encompass making multiplexers of the type disclosed by Dragone.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the applied
references would not have suggested the refractive indices of the optical
cores having a contrast relative to the refractive index of the undercladding
layer greater than 2%. Bazylenko specifically teaches that the difference in
index of refraction between the optical core and the undercladding layer can
be “about 0.02,” or, about 2%, which would certainly include and suggest a
difference of somewhat greater than 2% (see col. 6, ll. 29-33). We perceive
no patentable distinction between the claimed “greater than 2%” and the
prior art disclosure of about 2% which includes values greater than 2%.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013