Appeal 2006-2592
Application 10/035,535
gas to dope the preform with chlorine, where the atmosphere is at an
absolute pressure substantially greater than 1.013x102 kPa (Br. 2).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method of manufacturing an optical waveguide preform, said
method comprising:
exposing a soot preform to an atmosphere including a chlorine-
containing gas and thereby doping the soot preform with chlorine, wherein
the absolute pressure of the atmosphere is substantially greater than
1.013 x 102 kPa and the mole percentage of chlorine present in the
atmosphere is between about 20% and 40%.
The Examiner has relied on the following prior art references as
evidence of obviousness:
Ishikawa US 6,116,055 Sep. 12, 2000
Kingery, Introduction to Ceramics 219-226 (2d. ed., John Wiley & Sons,
1976)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 1-3, 6-31, and 36-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Kingery (Answer 3).
Appellants contend that Ishikawa and Kingery at best provide an
incentive to try, since Ishikawa teaches that partial pressures greater than 1
atmosphere present a problem, and provides no motivation or expectation of
success in trying high pressures (Br. 4-5).
Appellants contend that Ishikawa provides no enablement on how to
overcome the problem and specifically discourages extending the partial
pressure above 1 atmosphere (Br. 5).
The Examiner contends that Ishikawa does not teach the pressure as
required by claim 1 on appeal but teaches use of pressures greater than
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013