Appeal No. 2003-0735
Application 09/238,859
claimed invention, and provides reasons as to how and why the
prior art teachings would have been modified and/or combined to
arrive at the claimed invention. In our opinion, the Examiner's
analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we find that the
Examiner has at least satisfied the burden of presenting a prima
facie case of obviousness. The burden is, therefore, upon
Appellants to come forward with evidence and/or arguments which
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants
have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellants’ arguments in response assert a failure by the
Examiner to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness since
proper motivation for the proposed combination of the admitted
prior art and Kemeny has not been established. In particular,
Appellants contend (Brief, pages 11-14; Reply Brief, pages 4-7)
that, in contrast to the claimed invention and the admitted prior
art which are directed to laser scanning microscopes, Kemeny’s
disclosure is directed to a spectrometer. In a related argument,
Appellants further assert that the operation of the spectrometer
of Kemeny involves a purposeful change in temperature of the AOTF
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007