Appeal No. 96-1625
Application No. 08/096,106
other hand, we do not agree with the examiner that the optical
fiber 38 and the Y-coupler 40 in Lequime operate
together as a fiber optic bundle with split legs as claimed.
Appellants have correctly argued (Reply Brief, page 2) that
“Birang et al. does not teach or suggest a fiber optic bundle
which splits into first and second legs and instead only
discloses connecting the exit ends of two separate optical
cables 77 and 78 into a single fitting 71 for an entrance slit
16 to a monochromator.” Thus, we agree with appellants (Reply
Brief, page 2) that “the Examiner has failed to show any
motivation to combine Birang et al. with Lequime et al.”
(Reply Brief, page 2), and “[t]here is, therefore, simply no
basis to combine the two references” (Reply Brief, page 3).
Based upon the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of
claims 1 through 4 and 14 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 5 through 13 is
reversed because none of the teachings of Ando, Imahashi, Lee,
Silvergate and Mächler can cure the noted shortcoming in the
combined teachings of Lequime, Landa, Birang and Smith.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007