Appeal 2007-0490
Application 10/095,716
1 affects power conversion efficiency, as Becker teaches that different
2 pumping powers produce different efficiencies for the same length of fiber.
3
4 ANALYSIS RELATED TO REJECTION OF CLAIMS 12 AND 16
5 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
6 Appellants’ arguments group claims 12 and 16 together. Accordingly
7 we group the claims together and select claim 16 as a representative claim.
8 Claim 16 is dependent upon claim 14 and as such also dependent upon claim
9 4. In combination, claim 16 recites that the desired gain profile is adjusted
10 by varying the power of the pump means. As discussed supra, we find that
11 Masuda teaches that the EDF amplification has a negative tilt. Further, we
12 find that Becker teaches that the efficiency and gain of an EDF amplifier is
13 dependent upon pumping power. We consider that one skilled in the art
14 building Masuda’s device, would recognize the relationship between
15 pumping power and gain and that the gain is adjusted by varying the
16 pumping power. Accordingly, we find ample evidence to support the
17 Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
18
19 ISSUES DIRECTED TO § 102 REJECITON OVER WEN
20 Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 through
21 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wen, is in error. Appellants
22 assert that Wen teaches “the characteristics of gain and signal to noise ratio
23 of an erbium doped fiber (EDFA) and the effects of stimulated Raman
24 scattering (SRS) on the characteristics of the EDFA.” (Br. 13). However,
25 Appellants argue (Br. 15):
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013