Appeal No. 2001-1692
Application No. 09/116,338
disclosed in Tanaka, would have avoided tearing the ribbon. (Answer, pp. 3 and 4.) We
consider this position by the Examiner to be deficient.
We do not believe the combined teachings of Tokuda and Tanaka would have produced
the claimed invention. In essence, the Examiner is suggesting to use the plurality optical
fibers produced in Tokuda as the source for the multiple supply devices (12) of Tanaka. It is
true that Tanaka discloses the uses of a plurality of supply devices however, these devices
contain preformed tape-shaped coated optical fibers, i.e., an optical fiber ribbon. (Col. 3, ll.
29 to 38.) However, the Examiner has asserted that the system of Tanaka replaces the coating
nozzle of Tokuda. Thus, it is our opinion that the combined teachings of Tokuda and Tanaka
does not produce the claimed invention. The Examiner has not indicated that the powder
application device (13) of Tanaka is suitable for binding together a plurality of optical fibers.
Moreover, Tanaka does not disclose the ribbons exiting the powder application device are set
simultaneously using a single means, in order to form optical fiber ribbons. On the record
before us, it appears the Examiner has reached this conclusion base upon impermissible
hindsight derived from Appellants’ own disclosure rather than some teaching, suggestion or
incentive derived from Tokuda and Tanaka.
The Examiner also rejected the subject matter of claim 1 over Bonicel. According to
the Examiner, Bonicel 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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007