Appeal No. 96-3969
Application No. 08/271,311
the present context does not require a "narrow band" filter as
the Examiner suggests that Appellants' arguments imply, it is
quite clear that the term "preferential" requires something
more than the 0 to 180 degree filter suggested by the
Examiner.
Further, even assuming arguendo, that the 90 degree angle
of incidence in Rabl could be considered a "preferential"
angle, there is no disclosure in Rabl of the maximum
transmission of a selected wavelength at the preferred angle,
a feature in both of independent claims 1 and 4. The Examiner
has cited a passage from Rabl (column 6, lines 42-45) as
support for the position that this feature is met by Rabl.
However, this excerpt from Rabl is concerned merely with a
description of the cut-off of excitation light and the
concomitant transmission of emission light and, in our view,
falls well short of describing the claimed maximum
transmission of a selected wavelength at a preferred angle of
incidence.
In conclusion, with respect to independent claims 1 and
4, it is our opinion that the Examiner's factual findings are
not supported by the record in this case, and the Examiner's
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007