Appeal No. 2005-1942 Page 11
Application No. 10/173,938
19-29) that the length of a bridge fiber (intermediate mode field
optical fiber) is 1/1000 or less the length of an optical fiber
having a positive dispersion value.
Nor do we find that the DCF is a bridge fiber because in
Keys, the bridge fiber connects the DCF fibers. Nor are we
persuaded by the examiner’s assertion (answer, page 8) that Key’s
disclosure of having the bridging fiber outside the housing is
simply an option of the device, and an alternative way of using
Key’s device. As we stated, supra, none of the three embodiments
of Keys discloses or suggests locating the bridging fiber inside
the housing or module, and the examiner has failed to point to
any disclosure of Keys to support the examiner’s position.
We are cognizant of the examiner’s position (answer, pages 3
and 4) that Mukasa discloses the claimed invention with the
exception of the cavity (and the bridging fiber being within the
cavity), and that it would have been obvious to therefore use the
spools and housing of Keys with the fibers of Mukasa, if
protection was desired. However, Mukasa alone suggests the
language of claim 1.
From all of the above, we find that the teachings of Mukasa
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1, that
has not been rebutted by appellants in view of Mukasa’s
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007