Appeal No. 1996-2991
Application 08/302,931
appellants' view that the pattern is applied to a glass which
contains boron oxide (B O ) and not to some other portion of
2 3
the glass that does not contain this compound. As to
independent claim 10, this claim clearly requires spacially
modulating a portion of the recited glass which contains B O .
2 3
As to the merits of the rejection of these two
independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we note that
beginning with the title of the Legoubin's article, the
claimed grating is formed in the core of the germanosilicate
fiber. Note also the end of the second paragraph at column 2
at page 1945 and the conclusion recited at the middle of the
second column at page 1946 of this reference. The teachings
of this reference are clear and consistent with appellants'
arguments that the core of the fiber is doped with germanium
oxide (GeO ), whereas the cladding is doped with boron (B) in
2
part. Page 1946, column 1, under Experimental results.
Inasmuch as it is clear from the noted teachings in Legoubin
that the grating is formed in the core rather than in the
cladding, the examiner's views to the contrary
notwithstanding, since each independent claim 1 and 10 on
appeal requires that the glass contain boron, there can be no
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007