Appeal No. 98-0002
Application No. 08/300,089
THE REJECTION
Claims 14 to 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the German '389A reference. Although the
examiner admits that it is unclear whether the German '389A
reference laser would work when passed through a wooden
barrier, the examiner states "it wold [sic] have been obvious
to employ a laser that could be passed through a wooden
barrier and refocused past the barrier to destroy pests on the
opposite side of the barrier" (answer, page 3). With respect
to claim 22 and the claims dependent thereon, while the
examiner admits that the German reference does not disclose
using the laser scanner through a hole made in the barrier,
the examiner concludes that "it would have been obvious to
hole [sic] a barrier to increase the power toward the target
species" (answer, page 3).
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have determined that the applied
prior art does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter on appeal. Accordingly,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007