Appeal No. 2001-0659
Application 08/935,368
OPINION
Appellant argues several differences between Mori and the
subject matter of claim 1.
First, it is argued that the examiner erred in finding that
spacer ring 408 in Figs. 23 and 24 is a "tubing" (Br5), because
it is a spacer ring.
We agree that spacer ring 408 is a "tubing" and that the
optical fibers reside at least partly inside the tubing and a
membrane is attached to ring 408. The fact the spacer ring has a
different name is not persuasive. In addition, although it is
inconsistent with the examiner's rejection, we note that the
optical fibers are within a flexible cover 403 which can also be
considered a "tubing" since claim 1 does not preclude the tubing
from being flexible and does not preclude the membrane from being
attached to the tubing indirectly via the spacer ring 408.
Second, it is argued that Mori requires two fibers while
"[t]he present invention claims the use of a single fiber" (Br5).
The examiner correctly points out (EA6-7) that claim 1 is an
open-ended claim which does not preclude the presence of
additional optical fibers. Thus, this argument is not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007