Appeal 2007-0490
Application 10/095,716
1 102, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10,
2 11, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3 ISSUES RELATED TO REJECTION OF CLAIMS 12 AND 16
4 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
5 Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 16
6 over Masuda and Becker is in error. Appellants argues that the combined
7 teachings of the Masuda and Becker “do not indicate changing or selecting
8 pump power in order to adjust gain slope of the EDFA in order to
9 compensate for signal slope accumulated in the transmission fiber.”
10 (Br. 18).
11 The Examiner contends that the rejection of claims 12 and 16 is
12 proper. The Examiner states “it is well known in the art, the power
13 conversion efficiency is the pump to signal energy conversion via population
14 inversion, that is the population density of the inverted level as is clearly
15 disclosed by fig. 8.32.” (Answer 13).
16 Thus, the issue before us is whether the combination of the references
17 teaches adjusting the pump power to adjust the gain of the fiber amplifier.
18 FINDINGS OF FACT RELATED TO BECKER
19 We find that Becker teaches on page 281, that the efficiency of
20 pumping power in erbium fiber is a function of length of the fiber and
21 pumping power. Figure 8.25 shows two plots of power conversion
22 efficiency (power conversion is proportional to gain) versus length of fiber.
23 Becker teaches that if the fiber is too short, there are insufficient erbium ions
24 to absorb the pumping power. Becker shows that pumping power also
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013