Appeal 2007-2223
Application 09/975,168
Appellants further dispute the combinability of Sharma and
Kartalopoulos based on the assertion that Sharma teaches away from using a
multimode fiber since using the multimode fiber of Kartalopoulos in a
telecommunications system is contrary to the accepted wisdom in the art
(Br. 10; Reply Br. 4-5). The Examiner responds by relying on the benefits
of using a multimode fiber in optical telecommunications networks as
disclosed by Kartalopoulos and concludes that, in spite of the prior art cited
by Appellants, one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
references to achieve proper fiber splice and good light coupling (Answer
17). We agree with the Examiner. Additionally, contrary to Appellants’
assertion (Reply Br. 4-5), a description of the problems in splicing or
coupling the single mode fiber in Sharma is not required for the combination
of Sharma and Kartalopoulos to be proper. As discussed above and
conceded by Appellants, Sharma may use either a single mode fiber or a
multimode fiber, which are suggested by Kartalopoulos based on the specific
properties that are desired or acceptable for a particular application. In fact,
since Kartalopoulos outlines the advantages and drawbacks of both single
mode and multimode network buses (FF 4-6), one of ordinary skill in the art
would have combined the references and used a multimode network bus in
Sharma to benefit from the known and predictable properties of such
multimode bus. See KSR, surpa.
Therefore, based on our analysis of the claims and the applied prior
art, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
Sharma with Kartalopoulos in the manner suggested by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Sharma and Kartalopoulos.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013