Appeal No. 1996-2991
Application 08/302,931
basis to sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 since
each of the claims also requires that the grating be formed in
the glass portion containing the boron.
With respect to the examiner's “residual issue” argument
bridging the paragraph at pages 8 and 9 of the answer, we
observe that the boron is doped in the cladding only of the
optical fiber in Legoubin. To the extent that doping is
explicitly taught, it is only from the reader's inference that
the cladding may be interpreted to be a glass material; as
such, we decline to so extend the teaching of this reference
to indicate that the cladding is glass in Legoubin. More
significantly, however, the earlier noted teaching of Legoubin
is that the grating is formed in the core and not the
cladding, which would therefore exclude the examiner's
reasoning. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1,
2, 3, 6, 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
On the other hand, we sustain the § 103 rejection of
claims 12-14 in light of the collective teachings of Legoubin
and Farries. We do so generally for the reasons expressed by
the examiner in the answer. Inasmuch as we extend this
rejection to independent claim 10 and its dependent claims 11
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007