Appeal 2007-1287
Application 10/161,274
21. We select claim 1 as representative of Group 1 and claim 5 as representative of
Group 2.
First issue:
Each of the independent claims recites a wavelength lit value indicative of
an active channel. As discussed above, Appellants’ Specification discusses this lit
value being indicative of light being present on the channel regardless of whether
the channel has been provisioned or whether there is a failure on the channel. (See
Fact 2). As discussed in our Findings of Fact, Beine teaches monitoring the power
input to each network element, power being the optical power (i.e. light). (Fact
10). Further, Beine teaches that the wavelength information circulated includes
number of channels received. (Fact 5) Beine does not discuss that this information
is derived from an indication of channel failure or channel provisioning, but only
that it is from the signal received. From these disclosures, we consider that one
skilled in the art would recognize that this information is indicative of there being
light on the channel regardless of failure or provisioning. Accordingly, we find
that Beine does suggest providing a wavelength lit signal indicative of the channel
being active.
Independent claim 5 also recites that an amplification level is adjusted based
upon this information. As discussed in our Findings of Fact, we also find that
Beine teaches this element. (Fact 9).
As the issue of whether Beine teaches separate values indicating that the
channel has been provisioned, whether a failure has been detected, and whether the
wavelength channel is not applicable to claim 5 or the claims grouped with claim
5, the first issue is dispositive. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection as
Appellants’ contentions have not convinced us of error in the Examiner’s rejection
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013