Appeal 2006-2592
Application 10/035,535
atmospheric (Answer 3). The Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill
in this art, using the principles taught by Kingery, would have used higher
pressures to maximize the amount of chlorine in the preform (Answer 3-4).
The Examiner contends that using higher pressures, as taught by
Ishikawa, will present only the hardship of using a complex furnace
structure, which would have been well within the ordinary skill in this art
(Answer 8-9).
Accordingly, the issues presented on the record in this appeal are as
follows: (1) Does Ishikawa “teach away” from the required pressure in
claim 1 on appeal?; and (2) Does the Examiner present a reasoned analysis
supporting the combination of Ishikawa and Kingery?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, and this prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, we
AFFIRM the sole rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Ishikawa discloses a method for doping chlorine into silica glass
where the refractive index may be controlled by changing the
chlorine partial pressure during the treatment of a “soot” preform
(col. 1, ll. 7-8 and 21-25);
(2) Ishikawa teaches that this process is applicable to a method of
making a preform for an optical fiber (Example 1 at col. 5, ll.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013