Appeal No. 2006-0297
Application 09/861,716
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,
we refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported position advanced by the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed
method for connecting glass fibers encompassed by appealed claims 1 and 15 would have been
obvious over the teachings of Hmelar alone and as combined with Conde ‘090 to one of ordinary
skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made. Accordingly, since a prima facie
case of obviousness has been established by the examiner, we have again evaluated all of the
evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness based on the record as a whole, giving due
consideration to the weight of appellants’ arguments in the brief. See generally, In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Upon further review, we find substantial evidence in the record supporting the
examiner’s positions for the reasons stated by the examiner, to which we add the following for
emphasis.
The plain language of claim 1, given its broadest reasonable interpretation in context in
light of the specification, see, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364,
70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989), specifies a method wherein the core of any manner of first glass fiber having a glass
transition temperature higher than that of any manner of second glass fiber, is directly contacted
with the core of the second glass fiber, and heat is applied to the first glass fiber at a point in the
range of at least 1 µm from the end surface thereof sufficient to fusion splice the two glass fibers.
Thus, claim 1 requires only that the glass transition temperatures of the two glass fibers differ to
any extent, however small. Claim 15 limits the method of claim 1 by requiring that the
difference in glass transition temperatures is in the range of at least 400°C.
3 The examiner withdrew the ground of rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007