Appeal No. 2006-2169 Page 11
Application No. 09/899,919
[have] perform[ed] equally well with the chaffered edge disclosed in Herrmann. . . ."
(Examiner's Answer at 5.)
Turning to the appellant's argument, the part of the specification that he cites
explains that his invention offers two advantages. First, an "optical fiber cord 90 is
retained after the mounting of the stopper 40. . . ." (Spec. at 16.) Second, "the
stopper 40 is less liable to impart to the optical fiber 91 an excessive pressing force
tending to compress this optical fiber 91 in its radial direction. . . ." (Id.)
Regarding the first advantage, Hermann discloses that because its blade parts
pierce the insulating sheath of a cable, "the fiber-optic cable end 6 will be retained in the
fiber receptacle hole 5 of the connector housing 2." (Col. 2, ll. 46-50.) Accordingly, we
find that the arrangement of the secondary reference offers the first advantage relied on
by the appellant.
Regarding the second advantage, the appellant explains that the advantage is
achieved by "removing the excess covering portion [of a fiber optical cable], instead of
merely pushing it away. . . ." (App. Br. at 13.) Because Herrmann's blade parts pierce
the insulating sheath of a fiber-optic cable, we find that these parts likewise remove the
excess insulating sheath, instead of merely pushing it away. Consequently, we further
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007