Appeal No. 2004-2230
Application No. 09/742,269
words by persons skilled in the relevant art.” Texas Digital Sys. Inc v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d
1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1058 (2003).
Upon our review of Appellant’s specification, we fail to find any definition of the term
“adjacent” that is different from the ordinary meaning. We find the ordinary meaning of the
term “adjacent” is best found in the dictionary. We note that there are two definitions for
“adjacent” which are suitable to the claim. The first is “close to” and the second is “next to”.2
We appreciate Appellant position that “adjacent” is only next to. However we find that
the claim language does not preclude a broader reading of an adjacent coupling device that is
“near to”. As an example, Appellant’s coupling device “K1” clearly fit the definition of an
“adjacent” coupling device as it is near to the fiber amplifier. Grubb’s figure 2 shows that
coupler device 110 is near to the fiber amplifier 114.
Finally, Appellant argues at page 9 of the brief, “Grubb et al. do not show [] a plurality of
optical fibers connecting said plurality of pumping-light sources to said at least one remote
coupling device, for parallel transmission of the pumping signals.” Additionally, Appellant
argues at page 3 of the reply brief, that Grubb teaches an “immediate combination of the pump
signal” and “a subsequent transmission over only one additional fiber.” We do not find
Appellant’s arguments persuasive.
We have fully reviewed the Grubb patent and find no indication that there is an
“immediate” combination of the pump signal. Rather, figures 2 and 7 of Grubb show that a
plurality of parallel fibers (items 205 in figure 7 and unlabeled fibers with gratings 103A-D in
figure 2) connecting said plurality of pumping-light sources to said at least one remote coupling.
We find it of no consequence that Grubb teaches that the parallel transmissions are then
2 The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, 1982, page 79. Copy provided to2
Appellant.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007