Appeal 2007-1710
Application 10/098,016
As discussed in our findings of fact, there are several light beam paths
in Nishio. Fact 2. Several of these beams could be considered to be the
light beam of the optical system. However, Nishio discusses only one
optical element as adjusting the position of a beam, item 11. Fact 8. Thus,
any of the beams of light in Nishio, which are down stream from mirror 11,
could meet the claim limitation of the light beam of the optical system.
However, down stream from the mirror item 11, there is no one beam that is
directed to two photo detectors as claimed. Beam 2b-1 (in figure 3) is
directed to photo detector item 4-1 which includes four sensors (fact 4),
however, these photo detectors are all at the same distance from the element
(beam splitter 3-1) which couples-in beam 2b-1. The optical circuit for
beam 2b-2 is similar. Thus, beams 2b-1 and 2b-2 do not meet the claimed
coupled-in beam. Similarly, the beam 2a, which traverses two beam splitters
(3-2 and 14) and as such is directed to two photo detectors (items 4-2 and
18), does not meet the claimed coupled-in beam as the second photo
detector, item 18, is used to adjust the focus (fact 5) of the beam and not to
detect deviation of the beam. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and the claims dependent thereupon, claims 2 through 7.
However, Appellants’ arguments have not convinced us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. The scope of claim 8 is different than that
of claim 1, notably, claim 8 does not recite adjusting an optical element and
claim 8 does not recite that both photo detectors be used to determine the
deviation of coupled-in beam. Claim 8 recites “means for coupling-in the
light beam into a housing part of the device defining an optical axis of the
device.” Appellants’ Specification, on page 8, identifies that the means for
coupling-in is a beam splitter. Claim 8 further recites two photo detectors
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013