Appeal No. 1998-2463 Page 12
Application No. 08/598,854
(final rejection, page 2) Andrews does not disclose “a
wavelength [dependent] dispersive element.” For the reasons
stated above with respect to claim 1, we find no suggestion in
the prior art to have substituted the wavelength dependent
dispersive element 206 of Appel for the variable refractive
index optical element 50 of Andrews. We additionally find
that if the wavelength dependent dispersive element of Appel
were substituted for the variable refractive index optical
element 50 of Andrews, the resultant structure would not
include wavelength tuning. We therefore conclude that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for claim 11. Accordingly, the rejection of claim
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 6-10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Andrews in view of Appel,
further in view of Asada. We note that claim 6 has language
identical to claim 1 “said source varies the electrical signal
to said laser such that the spot tracks the rotation of said
facet.” In addition, we find that Asada does not overcome the
deficiencies of the basic combination of Andrews and Appel.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007