Appeal No. 2004-2230
Application No. 09/742,269
converted into a transmission over only one additional fiber. We reach this conclusion because
Appellant’s claim 1 does not require that the transmission be parallel over its entire length.
Indeed, Appellant’s own figure 1 shows a parallel transmission followed by only one fiber from
coupling device K1 to coupling device K2. We find that the claim merely recites, “connecting”
and is silent as to whether this is “in-part” or “over its entire length.” As we have already
pointed out, claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. We find that
Grubb teaches the “parallel transmission” required by claim 1.
As to dependent claim 5, which depends from claim 1 and which is rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103, Appellant presents no separate arguments. Therefore, claim 5 stands or fall
based on the arguments directed to claims 1, which have been addressed above.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Other Issues
Should there be further prosecution of the present application or a continuation thereof,
Appellant’s and the Examiner’s attention is draw to Huber (U.S. Patent 5,321,707) and Tan (U.S.
Patent 5,914,799). Both of these references teach Appellant’s disclosed but unclaimed feature of
a pump source that is located remote from a coupling device.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 1-4 and 6-7 and we have sustained the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
of claim 5.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007