Appeal No. 2005-1942 Page 14
Application No. 10/173,938
We turn next to claims 13 and 24. As these claims have been
argued together, we select claim 13 as representative of the
group. We will affirm the rejection of claim 13 for the same
reasons as we affirmed the rejection of claim 1. We add that
claim 13 requires a first storage area but does not disclose a
second storage area. Because the module of Mukasa will
inherently have a first storage area as it holds the bridge
fiber, the rejection of claim 13, and claim 24, which falls with
claim 13 (brief, page 4) is affirmed.
We turn next to claims 14-17, 19 and 20. Because appellants
separately discuss the limitations of claims 19 and 20 from
claims 14-17 (brief, pages 16 and 17), we select claims 14 and 19
as representative of the group. We turn first to claim 14. We
affirm the rejection of claim 14 for the same reasons as we
affirmed the rejection of claim 2. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 14-17 is affirmed. Turning to claim 19, the claim
requires that the mode field diameter of the D+ fiber is greater
than the mode field diameter of the bridge fiber. Appellants
assert that the final rejection fails to point out this feature.
From our review of Mukasa, we find (col. 5, lines 34-38) that the
mode field diameter of the bridge fiber is between the mode field
diameter of the D+ fiber and the mode field diameter of the DCF.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007