Appeal 2007-0490
Application 10/095,716
1
2 ISSUES DIRECTED TO § 102 REJECTION OVER MASUDA
3 Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection based upon Masuda
4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is in error. Specifically, Appellants argue that
5 Masuda a) discloses using multiple optical pumps and as such does not teach
6 using one pump as claimed and b) is silent as to arranging the gain amplifier
7 section to provide a desired output. Appellants’ statements on pages 10
8 through 12 of the Brief apply the same arguments to claims 1, through 4, 8,
9 9, and 13.
10 The Examiner contends that the rejection is proper. The Examiner
11 states the claim “does not exclude the use of additional pumps.” (Answer 7-
12 8). The Examiner finds that in Matusda, figure 1, type 4, discloses a single
13 pump to pump both fiber segments. Further, the Examiner finds that
14 Masuda discloses that the gains of the Raman amplification and erbium
15 amplification are purposefully combined to provide a desired flat gain
16 profile.
17 Appellants rebut the Examiner’s statement on page 2 of the Brief,
18 asserting that the claim limitation of a “single pump” means “one pump”
19 whereas Masuda teaches using three pumps in the type 4-configuration.
20 Further, the Appellants argue that the claim recites that the desired gain
21 curve is for a one pump configuration, not the combined gain curve from
22 muti-pump, multi-amplifier device such as Masuda’s device.
23 Thus, the contentions present us with the issue of whether the scope of
24 the claims is limited to an amplifier which makes use of only one pump and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013