Appeal No. 2006-1403
Application No. 10/011,665
problem of cutting longitudinally without laterally drifting in
a way that would imperil the longitudinal elements held in the
plastic ribbon matrix”. (Examiner’s Answer, page 6). This is
the same problem Appellants encounter with separating
longitudinally extending optical fibers held in a plastic
matrix. Appellants’ goal is to successfully divide the optical
fiber ribbon into subunits without damaging the optical fibers
held therein (i.e. increasing attenuation of the optical
fibers). (Specification, page 6, lines 1-17). One of ordinary
skill in the longitudinal cutting art faced with the problem of
dividing a ribbon containing longitudinally embedded elements
without damaging the embedded elements would fairly look to art
that dealt with the same problem, such as Lochkovic and Teed.
Accordingly, we find that Teed is directed to solving the same
problem as Appellants and is analogous art for this additional
reason.
Appellants also argue that the modification of Lochkovic
with Teed is improper because there is no objective evidence of
record to support the modification. Appellants state that the
Examiner has failed to cite any text or other evidence from
either Lochkovic or Teed to support his obviousness conclusion.
However, there are three possible sources for a motivation to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007