Appeal No. 2000-1182
Application No. 08/957,554
In summary, we have not sustained the rejections of
claims 1, 11, 13 through 15, 17, 19 through 21, and 24 through
27 based on Ishiharada I or the rejection of claim 5 based on
a combination of Ishiharada I and II. We have sustained the
rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7 and 16 based on the collective
teachings of Ishiharada I and II. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3 through 7, 11, 13 through
17, 19 through 21, and 24 through 27 is affirmed-in-part.
We make the following new ground of rejection under
37 CFR § 1.196(b). Claims 1, 11, 13 through 15, 17, 19
through 21, and 24 through 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over the collective teachings of
Ishiharada I and II. Ishiharada I discloses a 3-5 meter long
waveguide (translation, page 4) with a flexible cladding
(translation, page 5) and a fluid core having a refractive
index greater than that of the cladding (translation, page 7).
As noted by appellants, Ishiharada I teaches roughening using
non-parallel indentations of the inner surface of the
waveguide cladding but does not teach that this roughening
should be divided into regions of different degrees of
roughness. (Ishiharada I also teaches blasting (translation,
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007