Appeal No. 2005-2418
Application 09/932,639
figure 4 of Endo does not permit the passing through of all other
wavelengths even though it effectively “drops” a specific wave-
length. We understand that an optical filter does not correspond
to the claimed WDM drop in claim 45. Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of this claim.
As to claim 47, we agree with the examiner’s brief
observations at page 8 of the Answer correlating the subject
matter of this claim to Endo’s teachings in figure 4 which
appears to read directly on the subject matter of the claim.
According to our earlier analysis, at least a selected one of a
plurality of wave bands is capable of being passed by the optical
filter as claimed. As to appellant’s arguments at page 15 of
the Brief, we do not agree with the view expressed that Endo
describes only the use of a single divider 12 connected at the
end point of the optical fiber 40 since a plurality of optical
filters 12-1 through 12-3 are illustrated.
We also sustain the rejection of dependent claim 48
since it essentially mirrors the argued subject matter of
independent claim 25 discussed earlier in this opinion. We also
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 49, 54 and 55 since
appellant’s grouping at page 5 of the Brief indicates that these
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007