Appeal No. 95-0065
Application 07/568,348
simply discover the optimum or working ranges from general
conditions disclosed in the prior art.
In our view, one of ordinary skill in the art
considering Wolbarsht, Horn and L'Esperance would at most
derive therefrom a suggestion to use wavelengths in the 1.2 to
1.3 µm range (as disclosed by Horn) rather than the 2.7 to 3.1
µm or 10.6 µm wavelengths disclosed by Wolbarsht, and we find
no suggestion in the combination of these three references to
use wavelengths in appellant's claimed 1.4 to 2.2 µm range.
Rejection (1)(a) will therefore not be sustained.
Rejections (1)(b)(c) and (d)
These rejections likewise will not be sustained,
since the additional references applied therein do not
overcome the above-discussed deficiencies in the basic
combination of Wolbarsht, Horn and L'Esperance.
Rejection (2)
The examiner takes the position that claim 54 is
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 over claim 15 of Sinofsky
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007