Appeal No. 97-0203
Application No. 08/162,893
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 10, the
Examiner, as the basis for the obviousness rejection, seeks to
modify the product inspection system of White which utilizes
electrical cabling and interfaces rather than optical fibers
and coupling devices as claimed. To address this deficiency,
the Examiner turns to Epstein for a teaching of utilizing
optical communication devices to provide coupling between data
stations in a communications system. In the Examiner’s line
of reasoning (Answer, pages 3 and 4), the skilled artisan
would be motivated to modify the electrical cabling system of
White by utilizing optical communication devices to avoid
drawbacks such as noise in electrical communication devices in
view of the teachings of Epstein.
In making the obviousness rejection, the Examiner,
therefore, has pointed out the teachings of White and Epstein,
has reasonably indicated the perceived differences between the
prior art and the claimed invention, and has provided reasons
as to how and why White and Epstein would have been modified
and/or combined to arrive at the claimed invention (Answer,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007