Appeal No. 97-0128
Application No. 08/098,989
question as to whether a laser beam is produced in Brau’s
optical cavity and whether wiggler 22 is part of this laser
beam generation is of no moment in deciding the issues on
appeal. It is our opinion that neither the wiggler structure
nor any other component in Brau is responsive to both
microwave energy and an accelerated electron beam to develop a
conditioned beam as claimed. Since all the limitations of
independent claims 1, 8, and 10 are not suggested by the prior
art, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of appealed
claims 1, 8, and 10 nor of claims 6, 7, and 10-14, which
depend therefrom.
As to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claims
11 and 15 based on the combination of Brau and Piestrup, we
note that Piestrup was applied solely to meet the waveguide
limitations of the claims. Piestrup, however, does not
overcome the innate deficiencies of Brau and therefore, we do
not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 11 and 15.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007