Appeal No. 1998-1974
Application 07/415,923
well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing
the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984).
According to the examiner, the claimed invention is
anticipated by Kaiser or is “at least clearly within the
pruview [sic] of Kaiser” and would have been obvious [answer,
pages 4-5]. Appellants make the following arguments: 1)
Kaiser does not suggest heating so that a fluoride glass fiber
can be drawn without appreciable crystallization; and 2)
Kaiser teaches use of an inert gas rather than a reactive gas
as claimed. The examiner does not address either of these
arguments.
As we discussed above with respect to Siegmund, the
examiner has both failed to properly read the claimed
invention on the disclosure of Kaiser and has failed to
identify the differences between the claimed invention and the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007