Appeal No. 97-3136 Page 10
Application No. 08/312,780
Additionally, we note that the examiner in the rejection
(final rejection, pp. 2-3) never treated the claimed
limitation that the laser device includes "a Nd:YAlO laser
3
crystal." In that regard, Berger does not teach or suggest
the use of a Nd:YAlO laser crystal. Thus, the burden was on
3
the examiner to set forth specific reasons why it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to modify Berger's laser package to
utilize a Nd:YAlO laser crystal. This the examiner has not
3
done. While the examiner did find that Ammann teaches a laser
device with a Nd:YAlO laser crystal, the examiner never
3
determined that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
Berger's laser package to utilize a Nd:YAlO laser crystal as
3
the laser material active medium as suggested by the teachings
of Ammann.
For the reasons set forth above, the applied prior art
would not have been suggestive of the claimed invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007