Ex Parte Rodriguez et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-1942                                        Page 2          
          Application No. 10/173,938                                                  

                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The appellants’ invention relates to closures and cassettes            
          for a housing bridge and/or transition optical fibers in a                  
          dispersion-managed network(specification, page 1).                          
          Claim 1 is representative of the invention, and is reproduced as            
          follows:                                                                    
               1. A fiber optic cable closure for containing optical fibers           
          of a dispersion-managed network, the fiber optic closure                    
          comprising:                                                                 
               a housing having a cavity; and                                         
               at least one bridge optical fiber disposed within the                  
          cavity, the bridge optical fiber having a first end and a second            
          end configured for optically connecting with optical fibers                 
          having different dispersion characteristics.                                
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Keys                      6,456,773                 Sep. 24, 2002           
                         (filed Apr. 17, 2000)                                        
          Mukasa                    6,470,126                 Oct. 22, 2002           
                         (filed Jun. 22, 2000)                                        

               Claims 1-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being           
          unpatentable over Mukasa in view of Keys.  Rather than reiterate            
          the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                 
          appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007