Appeal No. 1996-3003
Application 08/175,182
Examiner. Also, we agree with Appellants that their Figure 2
is not available as “prior art” because it was only
acknowledged as “known” to the inventors. We do, however,
agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ Figure 2 clearly
teaches everything recited in claims 3 through 7 and 9 through
11.
The Examiner has not indicated how Hashimoto and
Lyon are combined, only noting, in Paper No. 10, the lens of
Hashimoto and the PC board of Lyon. With respect to Chadima,
the final rejection, Paper No. 14, states:
The “first” and “second” surfaces
are shown in Chaddima (Fig. 4)
and the mounting board 20 is
clearly in a plane which is above
the “second” reflector. To place
the detector on the bottom of the
board would be a trivial
structural modification.
First, we see no motivation, stated or otherwise,
for relocating Chadima’s detector to the bottom of the board,
other than Appellants’ claim language. Second, even if one
were to move Chadima’s detector as suggested by the Examiner,
and even if this detector relocation were to meet claim 3's
recitation of the board being above the optical path, the
Examiner has not shown where this would result in “said
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007