Appeal No. 96-2043
Application 07/990,514
of claims 1 and 3 through 7, and further cites Kaufman as
teaching optical fibers of less than 200 microns in diameter.
Our review of Kaufman reveals that the reference fails to
supply the necessary teaching, suggestion or motivation found
lacking in our discussion of the prior art applied against
claims 1 and 3 through 7. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hussein in view of L'Esperance, Guerder,
Davies, Seppala and Kaufman.
Claims 2 and 9 are dependent on claims 1 and 8,
respectively, and contain all of the limitations of their
respective independent claim. Accordingly, the examiner’s
rejection of claims 2 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be
sustained.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007