Appeal No. 1999-0578
Application 08/217,641
uniform intermediate state and Harwood does not use its
feedback control to maintain a writing light intensity to
output light intensity ratio approximately constant as claimed
[brief, pages 12-13]. The examiner responds that Takimoto 1
still has a spatially uniform intermediate state and Harwood
suggests other modifications could be made to his device
[answer, pages 10-11]. Appellants respond that maintaining
the contrast ratio in Harwood is not the same and does not
suggest keeping the ratio of writing light intensity to output
light intensity approximately constant as claimed [reply
brief, pages 4-5].
We agree with appellants for the reasons set forth in
the briefs. Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 8 and 29.
We now consider the rejection of claim 30 based on the
teachings of Hanyu and Hartmann. This rejection is set forth
on pages 3-4 of the answer. Appellants argue that Hartmann
does not teach a spatially uniform intermediate state.
Appellants also argue that Hanyu does not teach the specific
advantages associated with the range of 10 -10 eqcm. The8 11
examiner responds that Hartmann teaches a spatially uniform
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007