Appeal 2007-0490
Application 10/095,716
1 REFERENCES
2
3 The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
4
5 Hiroji Masuda, “Review of wideband hybrid amplifiers” 1 Optical Fiber
5 Communication Conference, 2-4 (Mar.7, 2000 through Mar. 10, 2000).
6
7
8 Senfar Wen et al., “Characteristics of the Gain and Signal-To-Noise Ratio of
8 a Distributed Erbium-Doped Fiber Amplifier” 10 J. of Lightwave Tech.,
9
9 1869-78 (Dec. 1992).
10
11
12 P.C. Becker et al., Erbium-Doped Fiber Amplifiers, Fundamentals and
12 Technology, 281, 288 (1999).
13
14
15
16 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
17 Claims 1 through 4, 8, 9, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
18 § 102(b) as being anticipated by Masuda. The Examiner’s rejection is set
19 forth on pages 3 and 4 of the Answer. Claims 5 through 8 stand rejected
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being anticipated by Wen. The Examiner’s
21 rejection is set forth on pages 5 and 6 of the Answer. Claims 10, 11, 14, and
22 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
23 Masuda. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on page 6 of the Answer.
24 Claims 12 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(b) as being
25 unpatentable over Masuda in view of Becker. The Examiner’s rejection is
26 set forth on page 7 of the Answer. Throughout the opinion we make
27 reference to the Briefs (filed August 9, 2005 and January 11, 2006), and the
28 Answer (mailed November 16, 2005) for the respective details thereof.
29
30
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013