Appeal No. 2005-2418
Application 09/932,639
well settled that the manner in which a claimed apparatus such as
in claim 44 is intended to be employed does not differentiate the
claimed apparatus from prior art apparatuses satisfying the
claimed structural limitations. Appellant’s remarks at pages 12
and 13 of the Brief do not address this reasoning and no reply
brief has been filed.
As to the rejection of dependent claim 45, it recites
that the control modules include a WDM drop connected between the
fiber optic line and the respective well tool.
As to this rejection, we do not agree with the
examiner’s correlation that the directional couplers 11 in
figure 4 of Endo relate to the features recited of a WDM drop as
noted at page 8 of the Answer. On the other hand, at page 14 of
the Answer, the examiner takes the position that such a drop is
the light divider 12 in figure 4, merely alleging that it can
function as such a drop. Inasmuch as there is no specific
teaching of such a drop in the reference, we are persuaded by
appellant’s arguments at pages 13 and 14 of the Brief that such
drops were well understood by those in the art and specifically
discussed as to its functionality at Specification, page 6,
lines 22 through 28. The optical filter arrangement 12 in
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007