Appeal No. 97-0203
Application No. 08/162,893
teaching of using optical communication and fiber optic cables
to overcome difficulties with conventional electrical cabling
and interfaces. As the Examiner noted (Answer, page 7),
Epstein, in the illustrated embodiment, chose to utilize
optical couplers only rather than replace existing cable for
economic reasons. It is our opinion, however, that this fact
does not devalue Epstein’s clear and unambiguous suggestion of
using fiber optic cables as part of an optical communication
system to overcome isolation and noise problems associated
with electrical cabling. Accordingly, the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 10 is
sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 3-7, 9, and 11. As to these dependent
claims, the Examiner has either pointed to where the claimed
limitations exist in the applied references or indicated how
and why such limitations could reasonably be inferred to exist
by the skilled artisan. “In considering the disclosure of a
reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007