Appeal No. 2001-2421
Application No. 09/092,577
segment,” it also lacks the recited second end as spring 50 of
Scrivo is not positioned such that the bundle of fibers can emit
light conducted by the first end at the other end of the fiber
bundle. As depicted in Figure 4 of Scrivo, the cross-section of
the bundle of fibers changes from a circular shape to that of a
semi-circular as it passes through socket 62 and continues into
the termination tube 56 and therefore, what the Examiner
characterizes as the spring biased end segment, is not an end
segment of the fiber bundle that includes the second end. Thus,
since all the limitations of the appealed claims are not taught,
Scrivo cannot anticipate the claims. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 rejection of claims 9 and 10 is not sustained.
Turning to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-7 over
Miller, the Examiner asserts that the reference teaches all the
recited elements except for its connection to a handpiece, but
finds the use of such handpiece a well known modification
(answer, page 4). The Examiner further points out that the final
product of the claimed process is the same as that of the prior
art and requires Appellants to show error by providing evidence
to show that the claimed process results in improved product
(answer, page 6).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007