Appeal No. 2006-1403
Application No. 10/011,665
skill in the art would have combined Teed’s heater with
Lochkovic’s cutting apparatus.
Appellants argue that, based upon the knowledge available
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention, one would have used heat only to strip the ribbon
(i.e. remove the matrix material and fiber coating to expose an
uncoated optical fiber), not for separating the ribbon into
subunits (i.e. retaining the matrix material on the optical
fibers after separation). Appellants refer to Perrino as an
example of using heat to strip an optical fiber ribbon.3 A
careful reading of Perrino demonstrates that his teachings
actually support, rather than contradict, the Examiner’s
findings.
In Perrino, heat is applied to soften, and thus aid in
removing, the matrix and coating material of an optical fiber
ribbon before force is applied to strip the material from the
optical fibers. (Perrino, column 5, lines 13-17, 39-52). This
general teaching indicates that applying heat will aid in
separating the matrix and coating material. Perrino’s apparatus
3 Though the Perrino patent is not used in any of the rejections
on appeal, we must consider this reference because Appellants
have cited and discussed it in their brief. Moreover, we must
consider the reference in its entirety for all that it teaches.
In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007