Appeal 2007-1381
Application 10/686,069
We cannot agree that Pauley’s disclosure that the sizing agent imparts
stain resistance (FF 8) shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
had a reasonable expectation that the sizing agent would have the necessary
release properties when used on the forming tube of McClellan. The
function of stain resistance is not sufficiently analogous to the function of
releasing coated fibers from paperboard to support the Examiner’s
determination.
Von Hoessle does not remedy the deficiency in the rejection. While
Von Hoessle indicates that, in the art of making coil forms including coil
supports wound with very long windings of optical fiber waveguides, the
problem of trapping of the solvent and uneven drying near the coil support
was a known problem, this problem was addressed in a different way than
Appellant addressed it. Von Hoessle addresses the problem by using a
porous ceramic support. The Examiner does not provide adequate evidence
that using a sizing agent impermeable to the liquid solvent, but permeable to
the liquid vapor of the binder, as claimed by Appellant, was a known way of
solving the uneven drying problem.
III. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the Examiner has not properly established a prima
facie case of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C § 103(a).
IV. DECISION
With respect to the decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 5 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we reverse.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013