Appeal No. 2005-0783
Application No. 10/039,094
The instant rejection is based on less than convincing
reasoning (see the discussion of rejection (5), infra).
Nevertheless, it is axiomatic that anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness. Thus, a holding of obviousness follows from our
previous conclusion that claim 1 is anticipated by Byron.
Rejection (4)
This rejection is affirmed.
The examiner cites Bernstein as showing that a laser can be
used to remove a protective layer from an optical fiber. According
to the examiner, it would have been obvious within the meaning of
35 U.S.C.§ 103 to provide the Byron fiber with a protective layer
to obtain the benefits taught by Bernstein, and subsequently remove
the layer (i.e. “deforming” the optical fiber), as also suggested
by Bernstein, as a precursor step to forming a grating. In
outlining this rationale, the examiner presupposes that the
“deforming” step of claim 4 can be read as separate and distinct
from the step of forming the grating. We disagree. As we
interpret the claim, the recited deforming step must be a step
which forms the grating. To this extent we agree with the
appellants.
However, in our view Bernstein is superfluous to the rejection
since Byron forms a Bragg grating. According to appellants’
specification (page 1), a Bragg grating generally comprises “a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007