Appeal No. 2006-1403
Application No. 10/011,665
below, we find that the Teed patent is in Appellants’ field of
endeavor and is reasonably pertinent to the problem to be
solved.
Though Appellants state that their invention’s field of
endeavor is directed to optical fiber separating (Brief, page
8), Appellants’ specification uses language that indicates a
broader field of endeavor is intended. Specifically, page 17,
lines 19-21 of Appellants’ specification indicates that it is
not limited by the terms used therein. Moreover, Appellants’
specification explicitly states that though the invention has
been described with reference to ribbon separation using a
separating tool, “the inventive concepts of the present
invention are applicable to other suitable methods of separating
ribbons into subunits as well”. (Specification, page 17, lines
21-25). This language fairly suggests that the Appellants’
field of endeavor is the broader longitudinal cutting art
because other “suitable methods of separating ribbons” would
include a variety of longitudinal cutting tools for separating
the ribbon to the proper size without damaging the
longitudinally embedded elements (i.e., optical fibers) in the
ribbons. Moreover, regarding Appellants’ field of endeavor, the
Examiner finds that both Teed’s and Lochkovic’s disclosed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007