Ex Parte Catrysse et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 16, 2009

10989118 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 16, 2009)

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