Appeal 2007-1287
Application 10/161,274
stated in our Findings of Fact, Beine teaches a failure signal indicative of a
wavelength source failure or being turned off. (Fact 7). However, we do not find
that Beine teaches that the network elements transmit an indication to each other of
whether a channel has been provisioned. Thus, we cannot sustain the rejection as
we do not find that Beine teaches or makes obvious determining the three values
claimed and communicating them to another node. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4 and 22 through 24.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5, 6, and 9 through 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4
and 22 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The decision of the Examiner is
affirmed-in-part. Should there be further prosecution of this application we
encourage to the Examiner to consider whether claim 22 is drawn to statutory
subject matter
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) (2006).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013