Appeal No. 2001-1667
Application No. 09/117,280
teachings of the references." In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1363,
63 USPQ2d 2002, 2006 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). In
order to demonstrate the requisite motivation, suggestion or
teaching, the examiner may rely on explicit statements in the
prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art or
the nature of the problem to be solved. Thrift, 298 F.3d at
1363, 63 USPQ2d at 2006 (quoting In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365,
1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
The examiner relies on Hart as disclosing the invention as
claimed with the exception of passing the fiber through "a first
and second roller" and "pivoting said rollers . . . to impart a
spin." Examiner's Answer, page 3. The examiner relies on
Päivinen as disclosing a method wherein a continuous linear item,
i.e., an optical cable, is passed between a first and second
roller, the rollers being pivoted such that their axes of
rotation become non-parallel to impart an alternating twist to
the fiber. Id., page 4. The examiner notes that Hart teaches
that any "appropriate means for applying an appropriate torque to
the fiber" may be employed in his invention. Id.; Hart, column
5, lines 14-22. Accordingly, the examiner asserts that "[i]t
would have been obvious to utilize the Päivinen twisting device
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007