Appeal No. 96-3628
Application 08/050,029
networks and vice versa, Husbands discloses in the background section that both passive
and active networks, as well as hybrids, were known in the art and artisans were familiar
with how certain features of each might be combined.
The problem, as we see it, is that Husbands is directed to collision detection in
fiber optic systems. Both the prior art described in Figures 1-3 of Husbands and
Husbands’ Figure 4 inventive embodiment are directed to such collision detection. Thus,
to whatever extent Husbands’ array of transmitters and receivers may be arranged similar
to those in the instant claimed invention, the question arises as to why the artisan would
have taken this arrangement and placed it in the system of Ballance. The examiner
contends that the artisan would have been led to do this in order to increase the number of
networks that may be served, i.e., to increase the number of end users. However,
Ballance already discloses a way to increase service to a greater number of end users and
that is to employ splitters in order to split signals from a single optical fiber network.
Thus, Ballance already discloses a solution to the problem of an increasing number of end
users and we find no suggestion which would have led the artisan to do away with the
splitters of Ballance and employ, instead, a plurality of optical fiber networks. Certainly,
Husbands does not suggest a plurality of optical fiber networks connected to a single
head-end for the purpose of serving an increasing number of end users. We simply find no
incentive for the skilled artisan to have looked to Husbands for a suggestion to somehow
modify Ballance in order to provide a single head-end station connected to a plurality of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007