Appeal No. 95-2175
Application 08/100,332
states that the subject matter of the claim is directed to a
light waveguide cable per se. The preamble evidences no intent
to claim the combination of a cable and a building or claim a
cable installed in a building. Appellant’s brief also states
that the invention is an “improved cable as claimed....” Brief at
page 4. Appellant’s specification is also directed to an
improved cable and evidences no intent to claim the cable in
combination with a building or an intent of being limited to a
cable as finally installed in a building. Accordingly,
interpreting appellant’s claim as a whole, it is our view that
the claimed invention is directed to a cable per se, not further
limited by its application environment requiring a building in
which it is installed, and we will apply the prior art to the
independent claim 1 as so interpreted.
We make the following findings of fact. Van der Hoek
discloses a cable comprising an elongated body 1 having helical
grooves 2, 3, 4 which accommodate optical fibers 5, 6, and 7. In
the embodiment of Figure 3, foam or synthetic resin with
waterblocking properties is placed in circumferential groove 10
leaving the helical grooves free from waterblocking material
except at the intersection with groove 10. Therefore, van der
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007