Appeal No. 2006-1403
Application No. 10/011,665
is similar to Appellants’ in that a heater heats the matrix
material and then a separating device applies a force to the
pre-heated matrix material to separate it. In Perrino, the
force is applied parallel to the longitudinal axis of the fiber
so that the material is stripped from the fiber, whereas in
Appellants’ process the force is applied perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the optical fiber to separate the matrix
material from itself while leaving the optical fibers embedded
in the matrix, to thereby form ribbon subunits. Notwithstanding
this difference in force-application, Perrino’s teaching to
preheat the matrix material to aid in separating it reinforces
the determination that a reasonable expectation that combining
Teed’s pre-heater with Lochkovic’s separating device would be
successful in facilitating Lochkovic’s intended purpose of
separating the matrix from itself. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d
894, 903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Therefore,
contrary to Appellants’ argument, Perrino militates for, rather
than against, the Examiner’s conclusion that the proposed
combination of Teed with Lochkovic would have been obvious.
In summary, we find that Teed is analogous art and that the
Examiner has provided acceptable motivation for his proposed
combination of this reference with Lochkovic. We also find that
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007