Appeal 2007-0490
Application 10/095,716
1 supplies light to both a Raman amplifier and Erbium fiber. Accordingly, we
2 sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4, 8, 9, and 13
3
4 ISSUES RELATED TO REJECTION OF CLAIMS 10, 11, 14, and 15
5 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
6 Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, 14,
7 and 15 as being unpatentable over Masuda is in error. Appellants assert that
8 the rejection is erroneous for the same reasons asserted with respect to the
9 Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4, 8, 9, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §
10 102.
11
12 ANALYSIS RELATED TO REJECTION OF CLAIMS 10, 11, 14,
13 AND 15 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
14
15 Claims 10, 11, 14, and 15 are argued as a group. Accordingly we
16 group the claims and select claim 14 as a representative claim. Claim 14 is
17 dependent upon claim 4. As discussed supra we are not persuaded by
18 Appellants’ arguments directed to the rejection of claim 4. We find that the
19 scope of claim 4 is not limited to an amplifier which uses only one pump.
20 Claim 14 does not further limit claim 4 to a configuration where only one
21 pump laser is used to provide pumping power to the fiber segments. As
22 discussed supra, we find ample evidence to support the Examiner’s finding
23 that Masuda teaches one pump supplies light to both a Raman amplifier and
24 Erbium fiber. Thus, for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to the
25 Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4, 8, 9, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013