Ex Parte Bumgarner et al - Page 2


               Appeal No. 2006-0235                                                                                               
               Application 09/733,352                                                                                             

               Keck et al. (Keck)    3,711,262    Jan.  16, 1973                                                                  
               Knowles et al. (Knowles)   4,148,218    Apr. 10, 1979                                                              
               Bice et al. (Bice)    5.787,216    Jul.   28, 1998                                                                 
               David Halliday et al. (Halliday), Fundamentals of Physics, p. 189 (2nd ed. New York, John                          
               Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1981).                                                                                          
                      The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 3, 11, 13, 14, 16 through 22, 36, 37,                   
               59 and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knowles taken with Keck and                          
               Halliday (answer, pages 4-8); and appealed claims 4 through 12, 23 through 30 and 33 through                       
               35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knowles taken with Keck and Halliday                        
               as applied to claims 1 through 3, 11, 18, 19, 21 and 22 above, further in view of Bice (answer,                    
               pages 8-9).2                                                                                                       
                      Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 20 as a group and certain other claims                            
               individually with respect to the first ground of rejection, and claim 4 as well as certain other                   
               claims with respect to the second ground of rejection (brief,3 pages 6-9, see also pages 3-6; reply                
               brief, pages 3-10).  Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claims 1 and 4 as well as the                   
               other claims to the extent argued by appellants as representative of the grounds, the remaining                    
               claims thus standing or falling based on their dependency on the argued claims.  37 CFR                            
               § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (September 2004).                                                                               
                      We affirm.                                                                                                  
                      We refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition of the                    
               positions advanced by the examiner and appellants.                                                                 
                                                            Opinion                                                               
                      We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in                    
               agreement with the supported position advanced by the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed                      
               method of screening an optical fiber during a fiber draw process would have been obvious over                      



                                                                                                                                 
               2  The examiner has withdrawn the ground of rejection of claims 1, 13 through 16, 20, 59 and 60                    
               under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Knowles (answer, page 3; see final rejection mailed                     
               October 27, 2004, pages 2-3).                                                                                      
               3  We consider the brief filed May 23, 2005.                                                                       

                                                              - 2 -                                                               



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

Last modified: November 3, 2007