Appeal 2007-2929
Application 10/615,389
OPINION
We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, and enter a
statement under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(c).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The Appellants’ independent claims each claim an optical
amplification module for collectively amplifying signal light. The
Appellants’ Specification does not define “signal light”. However, the
Appellants’ Specification states, in the Related Background Art section, that
“further increasing the amount of information which can be
transmitted/received, using not only multiplexed signal light included in C
band (1530 nm to 1565 nm) but also that included in L band (1565 nm to
1625 nm) has been under study” (Spec. 1:16-20). Thus, the Appellants’
Specification indicates that by “signal light” the Appellants mean light in the
1530-1625 nm wavelength range.
The Examiner argues that the term “signal light” in the Appellants’
claim limitation “for collectively amplifying signal light having multiplexed
a plurality of channels in a single wavelength band including a wavelength
region having a wavelength of 1610 nm or longer”, which appears in the
preamble of each of the Appellants’ independent claims, includes infrared,
microwave and radio radiation and radiation having a mathematically
undefined frequency of zero (Ans. 3). That argument is not well taken
because the Examiner has not established that infrared, microwave or radio
radiation or radiation having a mathematically undefined frequency is
“signal light” as that term would be most broadly construed in view of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013