Appeal 2007-1287
Application 10/161,274
of claims 5, and 9 through 21. Appellants have presented no separate arguments
directed to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 5, 6, and 9 through 21.
Second issue:
Independent claim 1 recites determining for each data channel of a
communication node three signals a) a wavelength channel status value indicating
whether a channel has been provisioned, b) a wavelength channel failure value
indicating whether a failure has been detected on the channel, and c) a wavelength
lit value. The meaning of the term wavelength lit is discussed supra with respect
to the first issue. Appellants’ specification, on page 7, discusses provisioning a
wavelength as assigning it to carry information. Thus, the scope of claim 1
includes determining three values which are transmitted to different
communications nodes.
Independent claim 22 contains similar limitations. We further we note that
claim 22 is directed to a signal. It is not clear from the record whether the
Examiner considered applying a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. While we do not
now enter a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, should there be further prosecution of
this application the Examiner should consider whether claim 22 is drawn to
statutory subject matter. The Examiner is encouraged to consider the Interim
Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility, 1300 Off. Gaz. Patent and Trademark Off. (O.G.) 142, 152
(Nov. 22, 2005), in the section entitled "Electro-Magnetic Signals” and our
discussion in the principals of law section supra when evaluating claim 22.
As discussed above with respect to the first issue, we find that Beine suggest
providing a wavelength lit signal indicative of the channel being active. Further, as
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013