Ex parte ASCHENBECK et al. - Page 6




               Appeal No. 1998-0241                                                                        Page 6                 
               Application No. 08/465,373                                                                                         


                      direction and in magnitude.  The direction of rotation of the fiber can be either                           
                      clockwise or counterclockwise.  The magnitude of rotation is a measure of how                               
                      much the fiber rotates per unit length of the fiber.                                                        
                      While it appears that an "irregularly shaped" glass fiber as used in claim 10 must have a                   
               magnitude of rotation which is not constant, but varies both in direction and magnitude along                      
               the length of the fiber, we do not agree with the appellants' argument on page 5 of the brief                      
               that "[t]he language of the specification clearly states that an irregularly shaped glass fiber                    
               comprises two distinct glass compositions with different coefficients of thermal expansion."   6                   
               Rather, it is not clear whether "irregularly shaped" glass fiber also requires that the fiber be a                 
               dual-glass fiber or whether this is merely one example of an "irregularly shaped" glass fiber.                     
               Therefore, we find ourselves in agreement with the examiner that the phrase "irregularly                           
               shaped" is indefinite.                                                                                             
                      For the foregoing reasons, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 10 under                      
               the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.  112.                                                                           
                                                   The anticipation rejection                                                     
                      With regard to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.                      
                102(b) as being anticipated by Troth, the appellants' brief (pages 4 and 6-8) argues only claim                  
               6 separately from claim 1.  Accordingly, we shall decide the appeal of this rejection as to                        
               claims 1, 2, 4, 9 and 10 on the basis of representative claim 1, with claims 2, 4, 9 and 10                        

                      6Interestingly, the appellants have not argued, with respect to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.   
                102(b) as being anticipated by Troth, that the fibers of Troth are not "irregularly shaped."                     







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007