Appeal 2007-1008
Application 10/208,861
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Mensah US 4,636,405 Jan. 13, 1987
Shaw US 6,218,004 Apr. 17, 2001
Krauss EP 0 519 300 A1 Dec. 23, 1992
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1 to 3, 9 to 10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mensah.
2. Claims 4, 5, 8 and 34 to 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mensah in view of Krauss.
3. Claims 1 to 3, 9 to 10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shaw.
4. Claims 4, 5, 8, and 34 to 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shaw in view of Krauss.
Appellants contend that Mensah does not discloses or suggests a
second coating curing stage of the first layer on a fiber downstream of the
first coating curing stage of a fiber. Appellants further contend that Krauss
does not cure this deficiency of Mensah.
Appellants contend that Shaw does not disclose an apparatus for
curing a coated fiber and that Krauss does not cure this deficiency.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013