Appeal 2007-0680
Application 10/655,901
1 span to be importing limitations from the specification into the claims.
2 Through a similar analysis we do not find that claim 11 recites simultaneous
3 forward and backward pumping of a fiber span.
4 Claim 1 also recites “wherein a power of the first portion of the first
5 light beam is not equal to a power of the second portion of the first light
6 beam; and wherein a power of the first portion of the second light beam is
7 not equal to a power of the second portion of the second light beam.” Thus,
8 claim 1 recites that the beam from the first pump is split into two unequal
9 parts and that the beam from the second pump is split into two unequal parts.
10 Accordingly, we disagree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation and find
11 that claim 1 recites an uneven split of a single light beam.
12 Having determined the scope of the claims, we next consider the art
13 applied to reject the claims. Independent claims 1 and 11 stand rejected over
14 Grubb in view of Fludger. The Examiner’s rejection relies upon the system
15 arrangement depicted in figure 5(a) of Grubb. As discussed supra, we find
16 that Grubb provides scant description of how the fiber segments 28, 30 or 40
17 are being pumped. Thus, we find that Grubb alone fails to provide
18 substantial evidence of using one laser through a splitter to forward pump
19 one fiber segment and reverse one fiber segment. As discussed supra,
20 Grubb is silent as to the operation of splitter 24 and as such fails to provide
21 substantial evidence of splitting a single beam in to two un-equal parts.
22 Further, we find no discussion in Fludger of splitting a beam into two
23 unequal parts. Thus, we do not find that the combination of Grubb and
24 Fludger teach all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 11.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013