Appeal No. 1996-3152
Application No. 08/043,743
the portions of the optical fibers with the adhesive into the
processed tubular member after steps (b) and (c) and then
heating the tubular member. In other words, the claim
specifically requires that the tubular member be processed for
both cross-sectional area and axis shape before the heating
step recited in paragraph (e). Therefore, we cannot support
the examiner’s interpretation of claim 1.
It is also the examiner’s position that even if the claim
does require the tubular member to return to the memorized
bent shape and cross-sectional area by means of a single
heating step, it would have been obvious to so modify Hirano
“because the tubular member is of a single homogenous
material, any of its physical dimensions and orientations can
be affected by a single memorization treatment and a single
heat treatment” (second supplemental answer, page 3).
As to the examiner's contention that it would have been
obvious to return Hirano’s tubular member to the memorized
bent shape and cross-sectional area by means of a single
heating step, we must point out that obviousness under § 103
is a legal
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007