Appeal No. 96-2953
Application 08/258,565
Weyrauch. The Examiner has not alleged the claimed beam angle
can be found or is suggested by Weyrauch; nor can we find such
in Weyrauch. Thus, we will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 10, and likewise claims 11 through 14 which
depend therefrom and thereby contain the same beam angle
limitation.
With regard to the rejection of claim 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Spies in view of
McMurtry, Appellants argue:
The Examiner then correctly
admits that the light [of Spies] does
not pass the first, the second, the
third, and the second grating
successively (as recited in claim 15).
The Examiner then argues that
McMurtry et al. teaches the ability to
arrange multiple fixed gratings and a
movable grating in any order and still
attain “the same results”.
Applicants disagree in that
McMurtry et al. merely discloses that
one can reverse the order of the
gratings and produce an operative
system but does not teach or suggest
that the resultant systems are
equivalent in operation or necessarily
produce the identical result. (Brief
at pages 16 and 17.)
The Examiner cites McMurtry, and specifically column
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007