Appeal No. 2001-2421
Application No. 09/092,577
(Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
After reviewing Scrivo, we agree with Appellants’ assertion
that the claimed second coupling fixture comprising a spring
biased terminal end segment is not the same as the strain relief
spring 50 shown in Figure 4 of the reference. Scrivo, as shown
in Figure 2, discloses a conventional strain relief spring 50 and
a connector assembly 52 that connects flexible tubing 48,
containing fiber optic bundle 42, to opening 38 in illumination
system housing 32 (col. 3, lines 27-43). We also find that
strain relief spring 50 in Figure 4, in conjunction with
stainless steel ferrule 54 and stainless steel tube 56, provides
a transition area to convert fiber bundle 44 having a circular
cross section (col. 4, lines 6-10) to a semi-circular cross
section to be fitted in termination tubing 56 (col. 3, lines 52-
57). Therefore, we remain unpersuaded by the Examiner’s
characterization of the strain relief spring 50 as the spring
biased terminal end segment of the fiber optic bundle that
includes the second end for emitting light received from a first
end, as recited in claim 9. We further note that the strain
relief spring 50 of Scrivo is not only different from the claimed
coupling fixture comprising a “spring biased terminal end
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007