Appeal 2007-2202
Application 10/608,169
this, we find that one skilled in the art would recognize that there is a temperature,
which the control system is set to maintain, associated with the desired center
frequency the waveguides. As discussed above, the “logic” limitation of claim 1 is
broad enough to encompass any type of logic in which one frequency is associated
with one temperature. Thus, we consider the control system of Ueda 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 to meet the logic device of claim 7.
For the aforementioned reasons we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ueda.
However, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Appellants
have not provided separate arguments directed to dependent claims 3, 4, and 6.
Accordingly, we similarly affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ueda.
Anticipation rejection based upon Eggleton.
Appellants argue, on page 10 of the Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon Eggleton is in error. Appellants argue that
Eggleton is directed to thermally stabilized device whereas their invention is a
precisely controlled photonic switch with infinitely variable and precise control of
the selected frequency. (Brief 10.) Appellants also argue that Eggleton’s
processor only has a single control signal, not extensive temperature and frequency
logic to infinitely and variably select a frequency. (Brief 10.) Further, Appellants
argue that Eggleton does not inherently contain logic as claimed. (Brief 10-11.)
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013