Appeal No. 2007-1287
Application No. 10/161,274
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claim 1 through 5, and 9 through 241 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beine. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth
on pages 2 through 5 of the final Office action dated January 10, 2006. Claim 6
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beine in view
of Lauder. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on page 5 of the final Office
action dated January 10, 2006. Throughout the opinion we make reference to the
Brief and Reply Brief (filed June 16, 2006 and Oct. 12, 2006 respectively), and the
Answer (mailed Sept. 21, 2006) for the respective details thereof.
ISSUES
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 5, and 9 through 24 is in error. Appellants assert that the Examiner’s
analogy of the claimed wavelength lit value with Beine’s reporting of a wavelength
failure is improper. (Br. 12). Further, Appellants argue that the claims recite a
value indicating that a channel has been provisioned, whether a failure has been
detected and whether a channel is lit, and the Examiner’s rejection lumps these
three different limitations together without showing that Beine teaches each
separate limitation. (Br. 12 and Reply Br. p. 2).
1 We note that the final Office action inadvertently identifies canceled claims 7 and
8 as also being included in the rejection. The Examiner acknowledged this
oversight on page 3 of the Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013