Appeal No. 2004-2230
Application No. 09/742,269
Further, our review of claim 1 finds that claim 1 recites, “at least one remote coupling
device.” However, the claim does not recite what item the coupling device is remote from. We
appreciate Appellant position that coupling device is remote from the pumping-light sources.
However we find that the claim language does not preclude reading on a coupling device that is
nearby to the pumping-light sources. Rather, claim 1 only requires that the coupling device be
remote from something. We find that the “remote” limitation on the “coupling device” is taught
by Grubb et al. by the placement of the coupling device as part of the amplifier system 100 in the
communication channel. Thus the coupling device is remote from the signal source that
provides the input at 116.
Appellant also argues at page 9 of the brief that the “coupling device according to the
invention of the instant application is [] adjacent to the fiber amplifier” and “Grubb et al. do not
show ‘at least one remote coupling device adjacent to the fiber amplifier.’” We do not find
Appellant’s argument persuasive.
We have already addressed above the issue of the “remote” limitation of the coupling
device. We now turn to the “adjacent” limitation of the coupling device to the fiber amplifier.
To determine whether claim 1 is anticipated by the reference, we must first determine the scope
of the claim. Appellant argues that “adjacent” should be narrowly defined and we should find
that Grubb’s coupling device 110 is not adjacent to his fiber amplifier 114.
Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989) that “claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”
Our reviewing court further states, “[t]he terms used in the claims bear a ‘heavy presumption’
that they mean what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007