Appeal No. 2005-1942 Page 13
Application No. 10/173,938
at the outset that Mukasa is not specific as to the structure of
the module. However, upon providing Mukasa with a housing
including packages as taught by Keys, we find that claim 8 is met
because Keys shows packages 325 and 350 in housing 340. A
portion of bridge fiber 414, although not within the package, is
within the recess in the package where it connects to adapter 412
of first package or tray 350. The DCF is in communication with
the bridge fiber through the adapter. The DCF is configured for
connection to a fiber in the field. The L-shaped portion 125 is
a transition section that protects and routes the fiber to the
second tray. Appellants’ assertion (brief, page 13) that a prima
facie case is lacking does not persuade us of any error on the
part of the examiner. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 8, and
claim 9, which falls with claim 8, is affirmed.
Turning to claims 11 and 12, we reverse the rejection of
these claims because Mukasa is not specific as to plural trays
and because in Keys, only the DCF is within the storage areas.
Keys discloses part of the bridge fiber as being within a cavity
of the tray, but not within the first storage area. Accordingly,
we find that the combined teachings of Mukasa and Keys fails to
suggest the language of claim 11. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 11 and 12 is reversed.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007