Appeal No. 97-0203
Application No. 08/162,893
page 4). In our view, regardless of the ultimate accuracy of
the Examiner’s position, the Examiner's analysis is
sufficiently reasonable that we find that the Examiner has at
least satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. That is, the rejection would be sustained if
Appellants chose not to respond to the rejection on the
merits. The burden is, therefore, upon Appellants to come
forward with evidence or arguments which persuasively rebut
the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
In response, Appellants argue the Examiner’s failure to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness by asserting that
Epstein does not teach a communication system which utilizes
the claimed optical fibers. In Appellants’ view, Epstein
teaches only the use of optical coupling devices which are
inserted on either end of conventional metallic line
conductors.
Upon careful review of the applied references in light of
the arguments by Appellants and the Examiner, we are in
agreement with the Examiner’s stated position in the Answer.
In our opinion, the cited portion of Epstein (column 4, lines
53-61) relied on by the Examiner provides a clear and explicit
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007