Appeal No. 1999-0156
Application 08/555,901
See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually
made by appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the briefs have not been considered [see 37
CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of independent claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
2
§ 103 as being fully met by Murase . The examiner indicates how he reads claims 1 and 8
on the disclosure of Murase [answer, page 5]. A key feature of the examiner’s analysis is
that the suppression of high pulse peaks in Murase is inherently gain equalization as
recited in claims 1 and 8. Based upon this interpretation, the examiner finds that all
limitations of claims 1 and 8 are met by the Murase device.
Appellants argue that Murase is not directed to gain equalization and, therefore,
does not teach a “gain equalizing means for equalizing a gain of the input light signal” and
a gain equalizing means controller as recited in claims 1 and 8 [reply brief]. More
specifically, appellants argue that the suppression of high pulse peaks disclosed in
2Our understanding of Murase is based on a translation provided to us by the Scientific and
Technical Information Center of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of this
translation is attached to this decision.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007