Appeal No. 97-0398
Application 08/281,732
DiGiovanni et al to show that experimentation with
the composition of the second stage is clearly
suggested. Note that there is no teaching that
requires a particular passive loss or gain flatness
for the first stage with respect to the second
stage.
Overall, the examiner's rationale of the statement of the
rejection in the final rejection and as amplified in this
portion of the answer is considered to be presumptive and
essentially begging the question by relying essentially upon
an obvious to experiment type of rationale, at the same time
the examiner recognizes that “there is no teaching [in
DiGiovanni] that requires a particular passive loss or gain
flatness for the first stage with respect to the second
stage.” Although there may be some merit from an artisan's
perspective that the reference suggests some degree of
experimentation or variability of the composition of the
optical fibers discussed in the reference, the examiner has
provided no rationale and/or additional evidence in the form
of other patents or publications to persuade us to conclude
that the artisan would have found it obvious to have
constructed an output stage having a passive loss that is
lower than the given passive loss of the first stage at the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007