Ex Parte Prosyk et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201412638372 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/638,372 12/15/2009 Kelvin Prosyk 8789/1(a) 4938 23381 7590 10/31/2014 Dorr, Carson & Birney, P.C. 5299 DTC Boulevard Suite 340 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 EXAMINER SMITH, CHAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2874 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2014 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte KEVIN PROSYK, RONALD KAISER, and KARL-OTTO VELTHAUS ________________ Appeal 2013-001214 Application 12/638,372 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, CHARLES F. WARREN, and TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a monolithic optoelectronic device. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A monolithic optoelectronic device comprising: an underclad; a waveguide containing a waveguide core interposed between the underclad and a waveguide overclad, said waveguide overclad being doped to be substantially conducting, and at least one electrode connected to at least a portion of the waveguide overclad; and Appeal 2013-001214 Application 12/638,372 2 a spot-size converter optically connected to the waveguide, said spot- size converter containing a spot-size converter core interposed between a spot-size converter overclad and the underclad; wherein the spot-size converter overclad is adjacent to the waveguide overclad and wherein the overclad of the waveguide is more highly doped than the overclad of the spot-size converter. The References Rolland US 5,799,119 Aug. 25, 1998 Nashimoto US 2003/0081900 A1 May 1, 2003 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as follows: claims 1 and 3–5 over Nashimoto and claims 1, 2, and 6–10 over Rolland. OPINION We affirm the rejections. Rejection over Nashimoto The Appellants argue the claims as a group (Br. 4–5). We, therefore, limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1, which is the sole independent claim among claims 1 and 3–5. Claims 3–5 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2011). “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255–256 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Nashimoto discloses an optical waveguide element comprising an optical waveguide layer (3) (which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants’ underclad (Ans. 4)), a wide channel optical waveguide (4) (which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appeal 2013-001214 Application 12/638,372 3 Appellants’ waveguide containing a waveguide core (Ans. 4)) having a widened end (Fig. 12) (which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants’ spot-size converter (Ans. 5)), a monocrystalline substrate (1) (which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants’ waveguide overclad (Ans. 5)), and a buffer layer (2) (which the Examiner considers to correspond ,at its end where the wide channel optical waveguide (4) widens, to the Appellants’ spot-size converter overclad (Ans. 5)) (¶¶ 37, 39, 76; Fig. 9). The monocrystalline substrate (1) can be doped (¶ 102) and, therefore, is more highly doped than the buffer layer (2) which is undoped (¶ 64). The Appellants argue only that Nishimoto’s device has no change in doping along its axis of propagation between its input and output (Br. 5). The Appellants do not address the Examiner’s rationale in rejecting the claims, let alone indicate reversible error therein. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[E]ven assuming that the examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, the Board would not have erred in framing the issue as one of ‘reversible error.’ As recently acknowledged by the Board, it has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections . . . .”). Accordingly, we affirm the rejection. Rejection over Rolland We limit our discussion to claims 1, 2, and 7 because they are the only claims which include the subject matter addressed by the Appellants (Br. 6– 7). We summarily affirm the rejection of claims 6 and 8–10 as being unchallenged by the Appellants. Appeal 2013-001214 Application 12/638,372 4 Rolland discloses a Mach Zehnder modulator comprising a weakly guiding waveguide input section (280), a strongly guiding waveguide section (214) and an intermediate section (290) (col. 9, ll. 9–14; Fig. 7). The intermediate section (290) includes a guiding layer (256) (which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants’ waveguide containing a waveguide core, an end of which the Examiner considers to correspond to the Appellants’ spot-size converter (Ans. 6)), an n-type layer (254) (which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants’ underclad, and end of which the Examiner considers to correspond to the Appellants’ spot-size converter overclad (Ans. 6)), and a p-type layer (258) (which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellants’ waveguide overclad (Ans. 6)) (col. 8, ll. 20–23; col. 9, ll. 9–14; Fig. 7). The Examiner considers Rolland’s p-type layer (258) to be more highly doped than the n-type layer (254) because the n-type layer (254) contains no p dopant (Ans. 6–7). The Appellants argue only that because Rolland’s p-type layer (258) is above the guiding layer (256) whereas Rolland’s n-type layer (254) is below the guiding layer (256) (Fig. 11), doping changes occur only in the vertical direction (Br. 6–7). Again, the Appellants do not address the Examiner’s rationale in rejecting the claims, let alone indicate reversible error therein. See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365. Consequently, we affirm the rejection. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1 and 3–5 over Nashimoto and claims 1, 2, and 6–10 over Rolland are affirmed. Appeal 2013-001214 Application 12/638,372 5 It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED cam Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation