Appeal No. 95-1288
Application No. 07/844,027
All of the rejections are reversed.
The indefiniteness rejection is reversed because it is
clear from appellants’ disclosure (specification, pages 4
through 7) that the claimed ‘axial direction’ is “along the
longitudinal direction of the fiber,” and the ‘first surface’
is “perpendicular to the ‘axial direction’.”
In the obviousness rejection, Sato is not a proper prior
art reference because the filing date thereof is after the
filing date of the subject application. The examiner relied
on this reference to show a “semiconductor component as being
approximately the same size as a header,” and a plurality of
mating semiconductor devices and optical fibers (Answer, page
4). The examiner’s obviousness position (Answer, pages 3
through 5) can not be sustained because Berg and Bowen do not
disclose the transverse dimensions of a header being
approximately the same size as the first or second surfaces of
a semiconductor component (claims 16 through 21 and 24 through
27), and a plurality of semiconductor components fixed to a
plurality of optical fibers (claim 27).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007