Appeal No. 1998-1974
Application 07/415,923
Siegmund is not directed to drawing fluoride glass fibers so
that Siegmund recognizes none of the heating and temperature
constraints required by claim 1. The fact that the vessel in
Siegmund is made of stainless steel (not insulated) suggests
that temperature control of the type recited in claim 1 to
avoid appreciable crystallization was of no concern to
Siegmund. The examiner has not presented any evidence on this
record to support his assertion that such temperature control
would have been obvious for drawing fluoride glass fibers.
The examiner has also failed to address the obviousness of a
reactive gas as recited in claim 1. Therefore, the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of the obviousness
of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 8 and 9 based on Siegmund.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Kaiser or as being unpatentable over the teachings of Kaiser.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007