Appeal No. 2000-2041
Application 09/014,148
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants argue on page 3 of the brief that Li does not
teach a variable link reflector connected to said channel filter
for reflecting a portion of the light leaving said channel
filter, said reflected light having a wavelength equal to a
reflection wavelength, said reflection wavelength being
selectable from said first wavelength and a second wavelength
equal to the wavelength of one of said potential spectral lines
as recited in Appellants’ claim 1. Appellants point out that Li
teaches a system in which the desired spectral lines pass through
reflector 16. Appellants direct our attention to figure 3 of Li
showing output 1.
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ argument on page 4 of
the Examiner’s answer. The Examiner argues that the Li reflector
is tunable, thus it can be tuned to reflect any wavelength
including the desired wavelength which outputs to port 4 of
circulator 112 in figure 6.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007