Appeal No. 2001-1667
Application No. 09/117,280
art that would motivate him to combine the teachings of Hart and
Päivinen.
Each of independent claims 1, 11 and 12 includes the
requirement that the fiber passes between first and second
rollers. The claims further require that the fiber is not
laterally deflected along the rollers.2 See Appeal Brief, Paper
No. 22, received October 27, 2000, page 6, second paragraph;
specification, page 5, lines 1-15. As noted by appellant, Hart's
method clearly relies on back and forth oscillation of the fiber
on a roller. See Appeal Brief, page 9; Hart, column 4, lines 20-
40.
Even if the examiner were correct that it would have been
obvious to have passed the fiber between first and second
rollers, the examiner has failed to explain why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the Hart
method so as to prevent lateral movement of the fiber on the
2 We interpret the following claim phrases as requiring that the
fiber is not laterally deflected along the rollers: "without
displacing the fiber from a vertical path at a point of contact
with the first and second rollers" (Claim 1), "wherein a position
of the fiber along a longitudinal length of the first and second
rollers remains unchanged" (Claim 11) and "without deflecting a
lateral position of the fiber at a point of contact with the
first and second rollers" (Claim 12).
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007