Appeal No. 2000-0887 Page 9
Application No. 08/848,238
cable end. We find no teaching or suggestion in Shaheen for
the fiber optic cable to be anything other than a flat cable.
We do not agree with the examiner that the disclosure in
Shaheen of having a curved segment provides a teaching or
suggestion of making the bent or curved segment outside of the
plane defined by grooves of the fixture. To the contrary, we
find that Shaheen suggests that the fiber optic cable have a
flat co-planar structure that does not bend outside of a flat
plane. While we agree with the examiner that Yamada teaches a
fiber optic cable connector having different size grooves, we
find that Yamada does not make up for the deficiencies of
Shaheen.
“Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or in
view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor.”
Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087,
37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(citing W.L. Gore &
Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220
USPQ 303, 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The examiner's
broad, conclusory opinion of obviousness does not meet the
requirement for actual evidence. Each of the independent
claims requires bending of the optical fibers outside the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007