Appeal No. 2005-0783
Application No. 10/039,094
Rejection (6)
This rejection is affirmed.
As noted by the examiner, Prast (Figs. 4, 5) suggests
directing two circumferentially displaced laser beams at an optical
fiber for purposes of performing measurements on the fiber as it is
being manufactured. The beams are also directed toward the fiber
at numerous axial locations along the fiber by virtue of the axial
movement of the fiber relative to the measuring beams. In this
regard, see Prast at col. 10, l.37 - col. 11, l.54 (Fig. 8). Nakai
simply shows that a grating may be formed on an optical fiber.
We agree with the examiner that the collective teachings of
Prast and Nakai render the claimed method obvious. In this case,
the subject claims do not require that the grating is formed by the
recited laser beams. Thus, the claims read on the separate
operations of performing measurements on an optical fiber as it is
being manufactured by using two laser beams (Prast) and, then,
forming a grating on the fiber (Nakai).
Appellants’ separate arguments relative to claims 7 and 8 have
been satisfactorily addressed in the examiner’s answer (pp. 10,
ll. 16-17). Accordingly, we adopt the examiner’s position as our
own with regard to claims 7-8.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007