Appeal No. 96-0948 Page 12
Application No. 08/262,400
The examiner’s conclusion that this would have suggested that
shutters be used to block the beams is not supported by any
evidence. In addition, in view of the fact that the prisms
are used to transmit these beams as well as alter their
direction, it would appear that shutters could not be
substituted for the prisms without a wholesale redesign of the
Sud system, which would operate as a disincentive to the
proposed modification. In any event, we fail to perceive any
teaching, suggestion or incentive which would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the Sud system in the
manner here proposed by the examiner. A prima facie case of
obviousness therefore is not established, and the rejection of
these claims cannot be sustained.
Claim 9 adds to the invention described by claims 1 and 8
“beam splitter means disposed adjacent to the laser source for
reflecting the laser designation signal therefrom and
transmitting the boresignt target signal along the same path.”
In the appellants’ disclosure, a “beam splitter” is defined as
a device, such as a mirror, that reflects certain frequencies
while allowing others to pass through. Three such elements
are present in the Sud system. The first two are mirrors 28
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007