Appeal No. 2005-1942 Page 12
Application No. 10/173,938
disclosure of forming the bridging fiber as a module. The
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is therefore
affirmed. As claims 3, 7 and 10 fall with claim 1 (brief, page
4), the rejection of claims 3, 7 and 10 is affirmed.
We turn next to claims 2, 4, 5, and 6. As these claims have
been argued as a group, we select claim 2 as representative of
the group. Appellants assert (brief, page 11 and 12) that the
claims recite the additional limitation of an optical connection
between a transitional optical fiber and the bridge fiber with an
other end of the transition fiber being configured for optical
connection in the field. We affirm the rejection of claim 2 in
view of the disclosure of Mukasa (col. 8, line 60 through col. 9,
line 10) of connecting the bridge fiber to D+ and DCF fibers,
and the disclosure of connecting to an optical fiber for signals
of a long haul (col. 21, lines 8-10). Accordingly, the rejection
of claim 2, and claims 4, 5, and 6, which fall with claim 2
(brief, page 4) is affirmed.
We turn next to claims 8, 9, 11 and 12. As claims 8 and 9
have been separately argued from claims 11 and 12 (brief, pages
13 and 14) we select claims 8 and 11 as representative claims.
for the following reasons, we will affirm the rejection of claims
8 and 9 and reverse the rejection of claims 11 and 12. We note
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007