Appeal No. 2007-0400
Application 10/788,054
Action, the Examiner read this limitation on the lookup table discussed at column
10, lines 56-67 (Final Office Action 4). In the Answer, the Examiner modified the
explanation of the rejection by noting that microprocessor/controller 530 (Fig. 5)
inherently includes a memory for storing, at least temporarily, any failure
notification that the microprocessor/controller receives from photodiode 514
(Answer 12). The Reply Brief fails to address claim 11 at all, let alone point out
any error in the Examiner’s modified position, which is the function of a reply
brief. The rejection is therefore affirmed with respect to Claim 11.
Claim 20 specifies that the control device comprises a fault signal output
interface that is used to transmit fault signals to an external system connected to the
emission module. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner held that “the control
device (reference numeral 530 in Figure 5) comprises a fault signal output interface
(inherent from column 10 lines 56 - column 11 line 8), which is to transmit fault
signals to an external system connected to the emission module” (Final Office
Action 5). Appellant responded by arguing, correctly in our view, that “there is no
teaching in the reference that such failure is communicated externally” (Br. 6). In
the Answer, the Examiner changed position by reading the recited “external
computer system” on either microprocessor/controller 530 or a human operator
(id.). The Reply Brief fails to address claim 20, let alone either of these rationales.
We are therefore affirming the rejection with respect to claim 20.
At page 5 of the Reply Brief, Appellant separately argues the merits of
dependent claim 18, which was not separately argued in the Brief. This belated
argument will not be considered, because it is not responsive to a new point made
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013