Appeal No. 2005-1942 Page 15
Application No. 10/173,938
Accordingly, we find that Mukasa suggests the language of claim
19. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 19 and 20 is affirmed.
We turn next to claims 21-23. As these claims have been
argued together, we select claim 21 as representative of the
group. Appellants arguments are set forth on pages 17 and 18 of
the brief. We affirm the rejection of claim 21 for the same
reasons that we affirmed the rejection of claim 8. Accordingly,
the rejection of claim 21, and claims 22 and 23, which fall with
claim 21, is affirmed.
We turn next to claims 18 and 25-30. As claims 18 and 25-30
have been separately argued, we select claims 18 and 25 as
representative of the group. We turn first to claim 18. We
cannot sustain the rejection of claim 18 because the teachings of
Mukasa and Keys do not suggest the other end of the first optical
fiber being disposed within the second storage area.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 18 is reversed. We turn next
to claim 25. We cannot sustain the rejection of claim 25 because
the teachings of Mukasa and Keys does not suggest at least a
portion of the first and second optical fibers being disposed in
the second storage area. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 25,
and claims 26-30, dependent therefrom, 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