Appeal No. 2001-1692
Application No. 09/116,338
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Tokuda and Tanaka; and (2) whether
claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bonicel.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including all
of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s § 103 rejections are not well
founded.
According to the Examiner, Tokuda teaches paying out a plurality of optical fibers,
grouping said optical fibers together in a parallel group. The group of optical fibers are fed
into a nozzle and coated to form an optical fiber ribbon. A plurality of ribbons of optical
fibers are formed downstream from the nozzle by the use of dividing pins and these plurality
of ribbons are set simultaneously using a single setting means. The Examiner acknowledges
that Tokuda teaches the use of a single coating nozzle however, the Examiner asserts a person
of ordinary skill in the art would to have been motivated to used an alternate coating means to
avoid tearing of the ribbons down stream from the coating nozzle. Thus, the Examiner asserts
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Tanaka to provide an alternative
coating means. The Examiner asserts the use of a separate nozzle for each ribbon, as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007