Appeal No. 2006-2169 Page 5
Application No. 09/899,919
Here, the appellant argues claims 1 and 2, which are subject to the same ground
of rejection, as a group. (Appeal Br. at 10-16.) We select claim 1 as the sole claim on
which to decide the appeal of the group. "With this representation in mind, rather than
reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant[ ] in toto, we focus on the
following three points of contention therebetween," Ex Parte Massingill, No. 2003-0506,
2004 WL 1646421, at *2 (B.P.A.I. 2004):
- removing covering
- blade edge
- stopper retaining portion.
1. Removing Covering
The examiner finds, "It is clearly illustrated in Fig. 19 of van Woesik and Figure 5
of Herrmann, that by piercing the covering portion of the optical fiber, the blade portions
of the clip displace the covering portion, creating a cut. Therefore, portions of the
covering portion are removed from the area that is now occupied by the blade."
(Examiner's Answer at 9.) The appellant makes the following argument.
[D]isplacing the covering portion along the axial direction of the cord is
distinguishable from removing a portion of the covering portion towards
the transverse direction of the cord. Merely deforming and shifting the
sheath substance whose space becomes occupied by the chamfered
blades of van Woesik and Herrmann contrasts with removal of a "portion"
of the covering portion that inherently removes material from that portion,
as provided in claim 1.
(Reply Br. at 4.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007