Appeal No. 95-1288
Application No. 07/844,027
Berg et al. (Berg) 4,329,190 May 11,
1982
Sato 5,260,587 Nov.
9, 1993
(filed Mar. 30,
1992)2
Claims 16 through 21 and 25 through 27 stand rejected
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the
examiner is of the opinion that the claimed axial direction of
the header is confusing. According to the examiner (Answer,
page 3), “[i]t appears that the ‘axial direction’ should be
along the longitudinal direction of the fiber with the ‘first
surface’ parallel rather than perpendicular to the ‘axial
direction’.”
Claims 16 through 21 and 24 through 27 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Berg in view
of Bowen and Sato.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
2The filing date of this reference is after the filing
date of the subject application.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007