Appeal No. 96-3092
Application 08/307,498
fact, and since the evidence of record in this case
overwhelmingly supports the position of appellants that the
disclosed device is operative for low grade optical fibers
without additional structure, we do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of the claims based on lack of utility.
We now consider the rejection of claims 14-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 112 based upon the examiner’s position that the
disclosure does not contain an adequate written description of
the invention and does not enable a person skilled in the art
to make and use the claimed invention. This rejection is
similar to the rejection on lack of utility because it is
premised on the position that there is no disclosure of
alignment structure which will permit the invention to operate
as intended. Appellants
and the examiner have essentially made the same arguments with
respect to this rejection as they made with respect to the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Although the question of whether the disclosed
invention is enabling for optical fibers around 200-250
microns has not been resolved, the evidence of record, as
noted above, supports the finding that the invention as
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007