Appeal 2007-0680
Application 10/655,901
1 We further note that the art used to reject the other dependent claims,
2 Fidric and Agrawal, does not teach splitting a beam into two unequal parts
3 and using the parts to forward pump one fiber segment and reverse pump a
4 second fiber segment.
5
6 CONCLUSION
7 We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4 through 11, and
8 14 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to be in error as we do not find that
9 the combination of the combination of Grubb in view of Fludger teaches or
10 suggests the limitations in independent claims 1 and 11. The Examiner has
11 not asserted, nor do we find that Fidric or Agrawal, the references applied
12 against claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, make up for the
13 noted deficiencies in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11.
14 Accordingly we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 35
15 U.S.C. § 103 (a) of claims 1, 4 through 11 and 14 through 20.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013