Appeal No. 96-3092
Application 08/307,498
appeal the claims will all stand or fall together as a single
group [brief, page 5]. Consistent with this indication
appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to any
of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, all the claims before
us will stand or fall together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Therefore, we will consider the rejection against independent
claim 14 as representative of all the claims on appeal.
We consider first the rejection of claims 14-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 based upon the examiner’s position that the
invention as disclosed is inoperative and therefore lacks
utility. It is the examiner’s position that the mechanical
spooling device which has a torsion bar and clutch is
incapable of satisfying the delicate three-dimensional
alignment of the fiber terminal end to the optoelectronic
structure of the I/O means to properly couple the light
energy. The examiner contends that without additional
alignment structure which has not been disclosed, the claimed
invention would not operate and thus lacks utility [answer,
pages 3-4].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007