Appeal 2007-2176
Application 10/309,852
We begin our analysis by construing the contested claim limitations.
Next, we determine whether the prior art reference discloses each limitation
of the claim expressly or inherently. A claim limitation is inherent in the
prior art if it is necessarily present in the prior art, not merely probably or
possibly present.2
THE CLAIMS
Six claims are subject to the rejection, but Furukawa has focused on
claim 17 in disputing the rejection. Since there is no separate argument for
the claims, they stand or fall together.3 Claims 17 and 24, the only
independent claims,4 define5 the invention as follows—
17. A method of assembling and preparing an optical
fiber preform, comprising:
inserting a core rod axially inside a glass outer overclad
tube having an open distal end;
inserting a fusible plug in the open distal end of the outer
overclad tube;
providing a fusible fixing member for fixing the plug in
the region of the distal end of the outer overclad tube;
engaging the fusible fixing member with the outer
overclad tube in the region of the distal end of the outer
overclad tube, thereby fixing the plug inside the distal end of
2 Akamai Techs, Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., 344 F.3d 1186,
1192, 68 USPQ2d 1186, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
3 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
4 A claim is considered independent, despite an incorporation of limitations
from another claim, if it defines distinct subject matter. Ex parte Porter,
25 USPQ2d 1144, 1147 (BPAI 1992). Claim 24 is thus independent because
it defines a method of drawing optical fiber rather than a method of
assembling and preparing an optical-fiber preform as in claim 17.
5 Claim language is reproduced from the claims appendix to the appeal brief
(Br.).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013