Ex parte MARC STAMMER - Page 2

          Appeal No. 95-2175                                                          
          Application 08/100,332                                                      

          would stand allowed when the amendment after final rejection was            
          entered upon the filing of an appeal.  It is noted that the                 
          amendment has not been formally entered as of the time we                   
          considered the appeal.  However, we regard claims 7-11 as                   
          standing allowed as per the examiner's advisory action.                     
                    The claimed subject matter is directed to a light                 
          waveguide cable comprising two dissimilar portions.  A first                
          portion for installation outside of a building contains water               
          blocking materials in the cable.  A second portion for                      
          installation interiorly of the building does not include the                
          waterblocking materials.                                                    
                    Claim 1 reproduced below is further illustrative  of              
          the claimed subject matter.                                                 
                    1.  A light waveguide cable, comprising a flame                   
          retardant outer jacket holding at least one light waveguide, a              
          first lengthwise portion of the cable located outside of a                  
          building holding waterblocking material and a second lengthwise             
          portion of the cable located in a building holding no                       
          waterblocking material.                                                     
                    The references of record relied upon by the examiner in           
          his rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C.  103 are as follows:           
          van der Hoek et al. (van der Hoek)  4,381,140     Apr. 26, 1983             
          Saito et al. (Saito)               4,752,113      Jun. 21, 1988             
                    The examiner has rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C.             
          103 as unpatentable over van der Hoek in view of Saito.                     


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007