Appeal 2007-0680
Application 10/655,901
1 Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
2 claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellant argues that
3 Fludger does not discuss the effects on RIN1 in a fiber that is both forward
4 and reversed pumped with unequal power. Further, Appellant argues that
5 because Fludger teaches that counter-pumping is favored over co-pumping,
6 Fludger teaches away from combined forward and reverse pumping
7 implemented simultaneously over a single length of fiber, as taught by
8 Grubb (Br. 7-9).
9 The Examiner asserts that the rejection is proper. The Examiner
10 states, on page 7 of the Answer, that simultaneous forward and backward
11 pumping and an uneven split of a single light beam are not limitations
12 recited in the independent claims. Further, the Examiner asserts that Fludger
13 is directed to performance over a transmission system.
14 Appellant rebuts the Examiner’s claim interpretation in the Reply
15 Brief, asserting the independent claims 1 and 11 recite simultaneously
16 forward and reverse pumping a fiber strand and an uneven split of a single
17 light beam (Reply Br. 3-4).
18 Thus, the issues before us are whether the independent claims recite
19 simultaneously forward and reverse (co-pumping and counter-pumping) a
20 fiber strand, and an uneven split of a single light beam. The further issue is
21 whether the combination of the references teaches these limitations.
22
23 FINDINGS OF FACT
1 “RIN” stands for relative intensity noise (Fludger 16, left column).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013