Appeal No. 96-1615
Application 08/249,650
Cir. 1986). The examiner has presented to us no rationale
that would lead us to conclude that the artisan would have
required undue experimentation to have made and used the
presently claimed invention. Therefore, the rejection of
claims 1 to 22 and 33 to 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is reversed.
Turning next to the rejection of the independent claims
on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of Martin alone, we reverse both
rejections.
As to the anticipation rationale, the examiner’s position
is misplaced simply because the examiner gives little weight
to the limitation of the range of up to 770 nm as claimed, as
opposed to 700 nm which is clearly the outer range as set
forth in Figure 4 of Martin, because it is generally in the
same range as taught by Martin, that is, the visible range, as
expressed at page 5 of the answer. Basically, there can
clearly be no anticipation without some manner of deriving
this value from the reference. The examiner’s position that
the limitation would have alternatively been functionally
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007