Appeal No. 1999-0156
Application 08/555,901
and Nakabayashi because Murase has nothing to do with gain equalization while
Nakabayashi is only concerned with gain equalization [brief]. Appellants also argue that
even if the teachings of Murase and Nakabayashi could somehow be combined, there
would still be no teaching of controlling gain equalization in the manner recited in
independent claims 1 and 8 [reply brief].
We again agree with appellants. Since Murase has nothing to do with gain
equalization of an optical amplifier, there is no reason to modify Nakabayashi’s feedback
gain equalization technique and apply it to the input side of Murase’s amplifier based on
an input light signal. Therefore, we also do not agree with the examiner’s original position
that the claimed invention is fully met by the collective teachings of Murase and
Nakabayashi, and consequently, we do not sustain this particular form of the rejection
either.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007