Appeal No. 1998-1974
Application 07/415,923
1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ
785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered [see
37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The examiner essentially finds that Siegmund teaches all
the features of independent claim 1 except for the control of
the heating means to maintain the temperature within the
heating zone to +/- 0.5 C. The examiner considers sucho
temperature control to have been obvious [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellants make the following pertinent arguments:
1) Siegmund is not directed to drawing a fluoride glass fiber
from a fluoride glass rod; 2) Siegmund does not teach an
insulated vessel; 3) Siegmund does not teach temperature
control within +/- 0.5 C to avoid appreciable crystallization;o
and 4) Siegmund does not teach use of a reactive gas to remove
contaminants by chemical reaction [brief, pages 4-5].
We agree with each of these arguments by appellants.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007