Appeal No. 2001-2421
Application No. 09/092,577
the relevant teachings of the references.” In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Miller relates to a fiber optics illuminator wherein a
source of illumination for plastic fiber bundle light guides is
provided (col. 1. Lines 8-11). As depicted in Figure 2, light
from light source 2 falls on a first end of glass rod 9 and
travels along the length of the glass rod to be received by fiber
optics light guide 15 which is made of one or a plurality of
optical fibers in a bundle (col. 3, lines 54-66). As pointed out
by Appellants (brief, page 3), absent any teachings in Miller
that suggests a light transmitting core in the form of tubular
sheath, the disclosed optical fibers are of conventional fiber
type and not in the form of tubular sheath. Therefore, contrary
to the Examiner’s proposed modification of the fiber bundle of
Nash to be used with a handpiece, we do not find any teaching or
suggestion in Miller that supports the factual basis and the
obviousness of the proposed modification. The Examiner has
further failed to establish how the glass rod and the fiber
bundle of Nash that are merely positioned with their ends in
contact with each other, read on the recited first and the second
coupling fixtures. Thus, we find that the Examiner has failed to
set forth a prima facie case of obviousness and the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 1-7 over Miller cannot be sustained.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007