Ex Parte Catrysse et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 16, 200910989118 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 16, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte PETER B. CATRYSSE and JOHN S. WENSTRAND ________________ Appeal 2009-1636 Application 10/989,118 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Decided:1 April 16, 2009 ________________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and CATHERINE Q. TIMM, 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 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery). Appeal 2009-1636 Application 10/989,118 rejection of claims 1-8, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim an integrated waveguide comprising at least one metallic element in a dielectric structure. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An integrated waveguide comprising: a dielectric structure configured to receive a first electromagnetic field distribution via a first major surface and having a second major surface, the first electromagnetic field distribution producing a second electromagnetic field distribution within the dielectric structure; and a[t] least one metallic element disposed in the dielectric structure between the first major surface and the second major surface, the at least one metallic element structured and positioned to effect the second electromagnetic field distribution to increase an amount of the second electromagnetic field distribution that is incident upon a selected region of the second major surface. The Reference Minemura 4,978,187 Dec. 18, 1990 The Rejection Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Minemura. OPINION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection. Issue Have the Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that Minemura discloses, expressly or inherently, an integrated waveguide comprising at least one metallic element disposed in a 2 Appeal 2009-1636 Application 10/989,118 dielectric structure between a first major surface thereof configured to receive a first electromagnetic field distribution, and a second major surface thereof, the at least one metallic element being structured and positioned to increase an amount of a second electromagnetic field distribution, produced within the dielectric structure, that is incident upon a selected region of the second major surface? Findings of Fact Minemura discloses a filter for allowing one of TE (transverse electric wave) polarized light or TM (transverse magnetic wave) polarized light to pass therethrough (col. 2, ll. 45-48). In one embodiment, the filter comprises a substrate (20), a dielectric layer (30) and, within the dielectric layer, a waveguide layer (40) parallel to metal layers (100) (col. 11, ll. 39-43; Fig. 12). When the metal layers are parallel to the oscillation direction of the transverse electric evanescent field of light through the waveguide, the filter functions as a TE pass filter that prevents passage of the TM polarized light, and when the metal layers are arranged perpendicularly to the oscillation direction of transverse electric evanescent field of the emission light, the filter functions as a TM pass filter that prevents passage of the TE polarized light (col. 3, ll. 5-16). Minemura teaches, with respect to the embodiment in Figure 3 (col. 6, ll. 53-68): [T]he evanescent field invades or penetrates into an interior of the metal layer, and the guided light is subjected to a propagation loss due to the interaction between the evanescent field and the metal layer. This characteristic is changed in accordance with the polarized condition of the guide[d] light, i.e., the difference in oscillation direction of the electric field of the light wave. In case of a TM polarization, since the electric field is oscillated in the vertical direction to the metal layer, the electric field distribution of the evanescent field is substantial at positions deep in the metal layer. As 3 Appeal 2009-1636 Application 10/989,118 a result, the guided light wave is subjected to the effect of the metal layer, thus increasing the loss. However, in case of a TE polarization, since the electric field is oscillated in parallel with the metal layer, the loss is low. Analysis “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, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Appellants argue that “Minemura teaches that in the case where the electric field is oscillated in parallel with the metal layer, the loss is low (col. 6, lines 66-68), not that the field distribution is increased” (Br. 10). The Examiner argues (Ans. 7): Without the metallic elements (100), the field distributed to the second major surface[ ]2 would be decreased (Minemura, col. 6, lines 27-69). Metallic elements (100), by reducing the amount of loss from waveguide (40), increase the amount of the second electromagnetic field distribution; an increase that would not occur had it not been for the placement of these metallic elements. Thus the metallic elements (100) increase the amount of the second electromagnetic field distribution that is incident upon a selected region of the second major surface (which is tantamount to reducing the loss stated above). The Examiner’s argument that Minemura’s metallic elements 100 in Figure 12 increase the electromagnetic field distribution incident upon the bottom surface of the dielectric layer is incorrect. As shown in Minemura’s 2 The Examiner considers the bottom surface of Minemura’s dielectric layer 30 to correspond to the Appellants’ second major surface (Ans. 6-7). The Examiner does not identify what the Examiner considers to correspond to the Appellants’ selected region of the second major surface. 4 Appeal 2009-1636 Application 10/989,118 Figure 3, there is a loss at metal layer 100 of light intensity through waveguide 40 for both TM and TE polarization compared to the portion of the waveguide 40 preceding the metal layer 100. The loss in Figure 3 is greater for TM polarization than TE polarization because the evanescent field is perpendicular rather than parallel to the metal layer (col. 6, ll. 60-68), but for both TM and TE polarization the interaction of the evanescent field with metal layer 100 produces a loss, not a gain, in the evanescent field and in the intensity of the light through waveguide 40. That effect also is present in Minemura’s Figure 12 embodiment wherein the loss in the evanescent field and light intensity due to metal layers 100 is less for an evanescent field parallel rather than perpendicular to metal layers 100, but in each case there is a loss, not an increase. Conclusion of Law The Appellants have shown reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that Minemura discloses, expressly or inherently, an integrated waveguide comprising at least one metallic element disposed in a dielectric structure between a first major surface thereof configured to receive a first electromagnetic field distribution, and a second major surface thereof, the at least one metallic element being structured and positioned to increase an amount of a second electromagnetic field distribution, produced within the dielectric structure, that is incident upon a selected region of the second major surface. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Minemura is reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. 5 Appeal 2009-1636 Application 10/989,118 REVERSED ssl KATHY MANKE AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED 4380 ZIEGLER ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation