Appeal 2007-2202
Application 10/608,169
maintain. We consider this basic control to meet the logic of claim 1. However,
we do not find that this control necessarily contains a storage (memory) containing
a frequency and a temperature associated with the frequency. Thus, we do not
consider this control to meet the logic device of claim 7.
For the aforementioned reasons we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 7 and dependent claims 8, 10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Huber. However, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1. Appellants have not provided separate
arguments directed to dependent claims 2, 3, and 6. Accordingly, similarly, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Huber.
Anticipation rejection based upon Ueda.
Appellants argue, on page 8 of the Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon Ueda is in error. Appellants reason that “[i]n the
present application, the temperature of the resonator directly affects the refractive
index of the resonator, thereby determining the frequency selected by the circuit.
Consequently, the waveguides of Ueda are not resonators.” (Brief 8-9.)
Appellants also argue that the claims recite a photonic switch which retrieves a
temperature/frequency pair from logic in a precise frequency selection scheme
which is not taught by Ueda. Further, Appellants argue, that for the reasons
discussed with respect to Huber, Ueda does not inherently teach logic as claimed.
(Brief 9.)
The Examiner responds, on page 10 of the Answer, stating:
Appellant has not defined what a "resonator" is, only stating what the
resonator does ("In the present application, the temperature of the resonator
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013