Appeal 2006-2416
Application 09/988,660
are well known in the art as represented in paragraph 0002 at page one of the
Specification as filed as being particularly well known sub-regions of the
so-called intermediate infrared radiation region.
Appellants’ arguments in the Brief and Reply Brief acknowledge that
these specific regions are also taught in Ben-Menachem.
It is also significant to note here that Appellants have not presented
any arguments in the principal Brief that the applied prior art is not properly
combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As to the above noted features at the end of claim 4 on appeal, the
Examiner presents arguments with respect to them principally based upon
the teachings and showings in Ben-Menachem and Amos initially at page 5
of the Answer and substantially expanded upon at pages 6 through 8 in the
Examiner’s responsive argument portion of the Answer. We substantially
agree with these positions set forth by the Examiner as to the Examiner’s
assessment of the teachings and showings in both of these references.
In contrast, Appellants’ arguments as to these argued features are
contained at pages 6 through 9 of the principal Brief on appeal with the
focus essentially being upon the color correction requirement at the end of
claim 4 on appeal. It is noted here from our perspective that Appellants have
not challenged the Examiner’s perspective that Amos teaches a broad
banded capability of color correcting infrared energy over broad
wavelengths. Notwithstanding Appellants’ arguments at page 7 of the
principal Brief alleging that Amos does not color correct all wavelengths, in
particular the more specific argument at page 8 of this Brief, as noted earlier
in this opinion, claim 4 only requires color correction at a first band of
frequencies.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013