Appeal No. 2005-2299
Application No. 10/603,714
page 3), one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted
Bucklen’s disclosure of a signal formatter between the optical
fibers and the electrical contacts as encompassing circuitry or
software for changing, at that point, the format and timing of data
transmission in accordance with a different protocol.
The appellants argue that Bucklen’s figure 3 shows optical
signals being turned directly into electrical signals, and vice
versa (brief, page 8; reply brief, page 5). That argument is not
persuasive in view of Bucklen’s disclosure of a signal formatter
accompanying the coupling between the optical fibers and the
electrical contacts as discussed above.
For the above reasons we find that the connection cable
claimed in the appellants’ claim 1 is anticipated by Bucklen.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of that claim and claims 2-20
that stand or fall therewith.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Bucklen is affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007