Ex Parte Sigalas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2013

10354796 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte MIHAIL M. SIGALAS and JEREMY A. THEIL
____________________

Appeal 2010-005145
Application 10/354,796
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and TREVOR
M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005145
Application 10/354,796

2

STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
The claims are directed to method and structure for coupling light in
and out of a three dimensional photonic crystal structure by coupling the
light through one or more defects. Spec. Abstract. Claims 1, 3, and 4,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A three dimensional photonic crystal structure for
coupling electromagnetic radiation in or out of a waveguide
comprising:
said waveguide passing in a first direction through said
three dimensional photonic crystal structure; and
at least one defect arranged in a second direction
substantially perpendicular to said first direction such that said
at least one defect is electromagnetically coupled to said
waveguide.

3. The structure of claim 1 wherein said at least one defect is a
cavity.

4. A photonic crystal structure with a photonic band gap
comprising:
a plurality of dielectric rods with a first refractive index
arranged in a matrix of a material with a second refractive
index, said plurality of dielectric rods being arranged to form
planar layers, said planar layers being stacked one on the other

1 Throughout the decision, we make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Jan. 23, 2006), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
Mar. 14, 2007), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 17, 2007).
2 Application filed Jan. 29, 2003. The real party in interest is Avago
Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
Appeal 2010-005145
Application 10/354,796

3

in a stacking direction to form a three-dimensional structure
having a surface in said stacking direction, one of said planar
layers comprising a waveguide, said waveguide being
electromagnetically coupled to said surface by one or more
defects arranged in said stacking direction.

Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-15 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Mehmet Bayindir and E. Ozbay et al.,
“Guiding, bending, and splitting of electromagnetic waves in highly
confined photonic crystal waveguides,” February 7, 2001, Physical Review
B, Volume 63 (“Ozbay”). Ans. 4-5.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ozbay and Lin et al, “A Three Dimensional Optical
Photonic Crystal,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, Volume 17, No. 11,
November 1999. Ans. 5-6.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ozbay. Ans. 6.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ozbay and Fan (US Patent 6,101,300 Aug. 8, 2000). Ans.
6-7.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4-8.

Appeal 2010-005145
Application 10/354,796

4

Independent Claim 1
Appellants argue that Ozbay “does not disclose or teach a three
dimensional photonic crystal structure that includes ‘at least one defect
arranged in a second direction substantially perpendicular to said first
direction such that said at least one defect is electromagnetically coupled to
said waveguide’; as recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 10. Appellants argue that
Ozbay does not disclose defects as required in Appellants’ claim and only
discloses cavities formed by the removal of rods or parts of rods from the
photonic crystal structures to form waveguides in the structures. Id. Thus
Ozbay does not disclose “additionally removing rods or parts of rods from
the structures for the purpose of forming ‘at least one defect . . .” as recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 11; see Ozbay Abstract, 1.
The Examiner argues that “it is well accepted in the art of photonic
crystals that defects are waveguides.” Ans. 9. In addition, the Appellants’
Specification refers to waveguides and cavities interchangeably. Ans. 10.
The Examiner contends that Ozbay discloses a three-dimensional photonic
crystal that shows a missing portion of a rod of one layer that is coupled to
the waveguide of another layer. Ans. 10.
Having reviewed Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred, we
agree with the Examiner. Ozbay discloses a three-dimensional photonic
crystal that shows a missing portion of a rod of one layer that is coupled to
the waveguide of another layer. See Ozbay Abstract, 1, Fig. 2. We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Ozbay does not disclose “defects”
as recited in claim 1. Ozbay discloses the same removal of portions of rods
forming waveguides that Appellants describe as defects by removing
portions of rods. See Ozbay Abstract, 5; Spec. 4:17-23. In addition,
Appeal 2010-005145
Application 10/354,796

5

Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s citation to contemporaneous art
that describes defects as rod-size for guiding light through photonic crystals.
Ans. 9-10 (citing articles describing properties of photonic crystals as
defects).
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ozbay. Appellants argue
claim 1 as representative of claims 2, 17, 18 and 20. App. Br. 11.
Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 17, 18
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Independent claim 4
With respect to claim 4, Appellants argue that Ozbay fails to “disclose
one or more defects arranged in a stacking direction of a stack of planar
layers, and does not disclose one or more defects electromagnetically
coupling a waveguide to a surface in the stacking direction.” App. Br. 12.
Appellants contend that the waveguides in Ozbay extend to the sides of the
structure and are not coupled to a surface of a structure in a stacking
direction. App. Br. 12
The Examiner contends that Ozbay discloses a missing portion of the
rod in the 11th layer which teaches one defect in a stacking direction. Ans.
11. Discussing the power splitter photonic crystal structure, Ozbay discloses
that “the EM wave inside the input waveguide channel was efficiently
coupled to the output channels” indicating that the wave of the photonic
crystal reached the surface such than another optical element may receive
the signal. Ans. 11 (quoting Ozbay 3, 2nd column, in reference to Ozbay
Fig. 2(c) power splitter structure).
Appeal 2010-005145
Application 10/354,796

6

We are not persuaded by Appellants arguments that Ozbay only
shows waveguides extending to the side of the structure and not in the
stacking direction. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the waveguides in
Figs. 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) do not show extension to the side edges of the
crystal structure. App. Br. 12. With respect to Figure 2(b), Ozbay describes
the formation of the cavities by removing “part of a single rod” from one
layer and “part of another rod from the . . . (adjacent) layer.” Ozbay 3, top
of first column. Thus, it is not readily shown that Ozbay describes the
output extends to the sides of the structure. Furthermore, we agree with
Examiner that Ozbay discloses that the “the EM wave inside the input
waveguide channel was efficiently coupled to the output channels” for the
power splitters photonic crystal shown in Fig. 2(c) and adopt the Examiner’s
position as our own. We find that the Examiner has sufficiently shown that
Ozbay discloses coupling to a surface of the photonic crystal. Ans. 10.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ozbay. Appellants argue
independent claim 4 as representative of claims 6-8, 10 and 12-14. App. Br.
12. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-8, 10 and 12-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Dependent Claim 3
Appellants separately argued dependent claim 3 reiterating the
argument for claim 1, supra. App. Br. 13. As stated above, we agree with
the Examiner that Ozbay discloses that vacancies or missing parts of rods
form the waveguide and fall within the scope of defects as found in claim 1
Appeal 2010-005145
Application 10/354,796

7

from which claim 3 depends. See Ozbay 3, 1st column; Ozbay Abstract, 5;
Spec. 4:17-23.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ozbay. Appellants argue
claim 3 as representative of claims 5 and 19. App. Br. 13. Accordingly, we
also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 19.
Dependent Claim 15
Appellants’ separate argument for dependent claim 15 repeats the
same arguments for independent claim 4. For the reasons stated above for
independent claim 4, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ozbay.
Claims 9, 11, and 16
Appellants make no separate argument for the patentability of claims
9, 11 and 16. App. Br. 14. Thus, those claims stand or fall with independent
claim 4. For the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 9, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 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)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2010-005145
Application 10/354,796

8

ELD