Appeal No. 98-0904
Application No. 08/500,033
Claims 1, 5, 6, 11-13, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Whiteside in view
of
Kahl and O'Neill. According to the examiner:
Whiteside teaches the claimed environment of use
of an infrared detector. Kahl et al teach the use of
a Fresnel type refraction in a proximity detecting
environment and O'Neill teaches the specific lens
employed in the instant device. It would have been
obvious to employ a Fresnel refraction lens as
taught by Kahl et al in the similar environment as
taught by Whiteside and to further provide for the
lens to be of the type taught by O'Neill. The Kahl
et al reference is applied solely as evidence that
refractive lens are known to be employed in the
infrared sensor environment to redirect beams to
desired locations. This provides the nexus for the
combination with O'Neill where the claimed
refraction lens is taught. With respect [to] the
"means separating said thin films" the ordinary
artisan would certainly find [sic, have found] it
obvious to separate the respective beams if conflict
between the two occurred.
It is axiomatic that the ordinary artisan would
be presumed to recognize the need to direct light
beams to desired locations particularly in the
instant case where the recognized problem is created
by dislocation of the transmitter and or receiver.
The solution to the created problem of misdirected
beams is to redirect them. The examiner contends
that the ordinary artisan would have found it
obvious to employ the O'Neill lens in the Whiteside
environment as the use of a beam path adjuster in a
beam path environment would have constituted a prima
facia [sic, facie] case of obviousness. Offered as
further evidence of this is Kahl, where the infrared
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007