Appeal No. 1998-2459 Page 6
Application No. 08/566,340
of the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 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).
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-4 and 7 based
on the teachings of Broerman. Appellant asserts (brief, page
2) that the issue is whether Broerman teaches "said guide
having a smooth exterior surface along its length covered by
the liquid" as recited in claim 1. Appellant asserts (brief,
pages 3 and 4) that in Broerman the test liquid covers a
smooth end of the optical fiber, whereas the claim requires
the test liquid to cover the optical guide along its length.
The examiner's position (answer, page 8) is that "the light
guide 28 [of Broerman] is cut at an angle which is covered by
the liquid. Thus [,] at least some portion of the length of
the light guide is covered by the liquid."
We find that in Broerman (col. 1, lines 27-29 and col. 2,
lines 41-49) the end of the tube 28, which is inserted into
housing 20, is cut at an angle other than 90° with respect to
the axis of the tube, as are the ends of the fiber optic tubes
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007