Appeal No. 2006-0235
Application 09/733,352
device or element which converts an input signal into an output signal of a different form,”11 and
would have recognize that the electronic output signal of transducer 30 is processed by load cell
29, with the electronic output of load cell 29 then used to control constant torque device 26 (see
above p. 6). Thus, Knowles would have suggested the claimed invention encompassed by claims
59 and 60 to one of ordinary skill in this art. In view of the electronic outputs of transducer 30
and load cell 29 and the subsequent use of the latter to control the apparatus in the method of
Knowles, we agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used any
manner of “a computer” in connection therewith to monitor the tension in the optical fiber and to
control the apparatus (answer, pages 8 and 11), appellants presenting no substantive contrary
argument based on the disclosure of Knowles (reply brief, pages 7 and 10; brief, page 8).
Finally, we consider claim 2, which specifies a fiber draw speed range as well as claims
18 and 36 and claims 19 and 37 which specify ranges of fiber length wound on a spool.
Contrary to appellants’ arguments (brief, page 8; reply brief, pages 5-6 and 7), we agree with the
examiner’s position (answer, pages 7, 8 and 11). This is because we find that one of ordinary
skill in the art routinely following the teachings of Knowles would have determined the
workable or optimum fiber draw speed range and ranges for wound fiber lengths for an apparatus
falling within the teachings of the reference, and appellants have not established otherwise by a
showing of the criticality of the claimed ranges. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577-78, 16
USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[T]he applicant must show that the particular range is
critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the
prior art range. [Citations omitted.]”); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456-58, 105 USPQ 233, 235-37
(CCPA 1955). (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in Knowles taken with Keck and Halliday and in this
combination as further combined with Bice with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and
argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed
11 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 2053 (5th ed., Sybil P. Parker, ed.,
New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1994).
- 13 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007