Appeal No. 2007-1287
Application No. 10/161,274
The Examiner contends that the rejection is proper. The Examiner finds
that:
[W]hile Beine has not shown the explicit teaching of a wavelength as "lit” or
not, it is believed that the document is replete with inferences that point to
both the separate teaching "wavelength channel status values" and
"wavelength channel lit values.”
(Examiner’s Answer 5).
Appellants’ contentions present us with two issues the first issue is whether
Beine teaches or make obvious a wavelength lit value indicating whether the
wavelength channel is active and the second issue is whether Beine also teaches
separate values indicating that the channel has been provisioned, whether a failure
has been detected and whether the wavelength channel is lit.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants’ originally filed Specification states on page 7:
A particular channel is said to be "lit” or "active” when light of the
appropriate wavelength 108 appears on the channel, but it should be
understood that the light need not be sustained in order for the channel
to be "lit." Instead, “lit” refers to light of a particular wavelength 108
appearing in signal 104 within a particular period, whether the light
itself is sustained, intermittent, or even sporadic.
2. Appellants’ originally filed Specification states on page 8, the “wavelength
channel lit value (WLC) that indicates whether there is light present on the
channel regardless of whether the channel has been provisioned or whether
there has been a failure on the channel.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013