Appeal No. 2001-2421
Application No. 09/092,577
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 11-
15 over Scrivo in view of Miller, We note that the Examiner
relies on Miller for disclosing the first coupling system
(answer, pages 4 & 5). However, we find nothing in Miller that
relates to the claimed spring biased terminal end segment that
would have cured the above-noted deficiency of Scrivo with
respect to the recited features of base claim 9 from which claims
11-15 depend. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Scrivo in view of Miller.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 17
over Scrivo or Miller, Appellants point out that the Examiner has
not provided a valid reason for modifying Scrivo or Miller and
add an infra red blocking means between the first and the second
couplers (brief, page 3). Appellants add that the references do
not suggest that an infra red locker would be useful or the
claimed optical fibers could or should be protected from the
effects of infra red radiation (brief, page 4).
We remain unpersuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning (answer,
page 6) that it would have been obvious to use an infra red
blocker “so that the devices can be safely used in the medical
field” as the Examiner has failed to point to some teaching in
the prior art or the knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art that would have suggested the proposed
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007