Appeal No. 1999-0236
Application 08/624,173
Examiner has provided no cogent reasons why (or how) one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify
Sherman to incorporate the teachings of Honda and Hanson.
The Examiner stated (EA8): "If the 'intensity levels'
are not controlled by duty cycle or scanner pulsing then the
claims are insufficiently disclosed since no other structure
or circuity for intensity control has been discussed in the
specification or shown in the drawings." We agree with
Appellant's arguments (RBr1-2) that the specification clearly
discloses that the two intensity levels are controlled by a
trigger which is placed in one of three different positions:
off, low intensity, and high intensity. Thus, a simple switch
is all that is needed to perform the control.
The Examiner has also stated (EA9): "It is rather the
appellant who has used 'hindsight' when considering the
problems of producing a scanner of two scanning levels."
"Hindsight" does not seem to be the right choice of words;
perhaps the Examiner meant to say "routine skill in the art."
In any case, the Examiner fails to show that the references
would have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
- 15 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007