Ex parte COCITO et al. - Page 2




                 Appeal No. 1999-2193                                                                                     Page 2                        
                 Application No. 08/975,338                                                                                                             


                                                                   BACKGROUND                                                                           
                          The appellants' invention relates to a method of                                                                              
                 fabricating a polarization-maintaining silica optical fiber.                                                                           
                 A substantially correct copy of the claims under appeal is set                                                                         
                 forth in the appendix to the brief.                            1                                                                       


                          Claims 5 and 6, the only claims pending in this                                                                               
                 application, stand rejected solely under 35 U.S.C. § 112,                                                                              
                 first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not                                                                            
                 described in the specification in such a way as to enable one                                                                          
                 skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is                                                                           
                 most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.                                                                               


                          The conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                                                                       
                 the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection are set                                                                             
                 forth in the examiner's answer (Paper No. 23, mailed February                                                                          
                 23, 1999) and the appellants' brief (Paper No. 22, filed                                                                               
                 December 18, 1998).                                                                                                                    



                          1A minor error in claim 5 is noted on page 3 of the                                                                           
                 answer.                                                                                                                                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007