Appeal No. 2006-0235
Application 09/733,352
therefrom in controlling the speed of a tractor assembly, that is, a capstan, in the method and
apparatus disclosed by Knowles in fact does not satisfy the subject limitations of appealed claim
1 including the term “monitored.” Indeed, we are of the opinion that the function of the load cell
30 to monitor the tension of the drawn optical fiber 8 by providing a measure of the same, and
the use of the thus systemically tracked and collected information as feedback to constant torque
device 26 to adjust the speed of the second tractor assembly 11 and thus, the tension of the
optical fiber between tractor assemblies 10,11, would have been clearly taught to one of ordinary
skill in this art by Knowles, as we found above, and the examiner explains the manner in which
this person would have understood the feedback from the load cell works to adjust fiber tension
in the context of the disclosure of Knowles. Thus, as found by the examiner (answer, pages 5-7),
the second tractor assembly 11 of Knowles satisfies the “second capstan” limitation, load cell 30
of Knowles satisfies the any manner of “load cell” limitation, and the use of the feedback from
load cell 30 to adjust the speed of second tractor assembly 11 satisfies the last limitation of
appealed claim 1 as well as the limitations in dependent claim 14 and independent 20 as the
examiner points out (answer, pages 7 and 8; see reply brief, pages 6 and 7-8). Indeed, claim 20
requires only that “the tension . . . is monitored” in any manner and the “speed of the screener
capstan is adjusted” in any manner “in response to said monitored tension.”
Accordingly, we determine that the examiner has made out a prima facie case of
obviousness of the claimed method encompassed by argued appealed claim 1, 14 and 20, and
appellants’ have not carried their burden of establishing otherwise.
Turning now to appealed dependent claim 4, rejected over the combined teachings of
Knowles and Bice, this claim further limits claim 1 by specifying that the any manner of spool,
e.g., 15, onto to which optical fiber 8 is wound must enable access to both ends of the fiber. We
find a preferred embodiment of such a spool 15 in FIG. 610 (page 8, ll. 26-30, and page 9,
ll. 3-18). This spool is referred to as a “storage spool” and as a “shipping spool” (e.g., page 8,
ll. 3-4 and 24-26, and page 9, ll. 12-14), and indeed, the terms “take up” (e.g., page 11, l. 30),
10 The specification refers to “Figs. 6A and 6B” (page 8, ll. 24-26) which are not included in the
“Brief Description of the Drawings” section of the specification (pages 7-8) and are not found in
the sheets of drawings that are of record in the official electronic files of the USPTO.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007