Appeal No. 1997-0030
Application No. 08/180,767
agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated by the combined teachings of Piper
and Kung to incorporate a output coupling device into the
laser system of Piper in a manner which would have resulted in
a “means for controlling populations . . .” as called for in
the last paragraph of claim 1.
In light of the above, the examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 5, 7, 24 and 29 as being unpatentable over Piper in view of
Kung cannot be sustained. As to the remainder of the
examiner’s rejections, we have considered the Bricks, Schachar
and Cahuzac references additionally relied upon by the
examiner in these rejections but find nothing therein which
makes up for the deficiencies of Piper and Kung discussed
above. Accordingly, these rejections also cannot be
sustained.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007