Appeal No. 1997-0030
Application No. 08/180,767
f) claim 20, unpatentable over Piper in view of Kung , and 4
further in view of Bricks, Schachar and Cahuzac.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 22) and the supplemental examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 27).
The opposing viewpoints of appellant are set forth in the
brief (Paper No. 21), the reply brief (Paper No. 23), and the
“Response to New Grounds of Rejection” (Paper No. 24).
Representative claim 1 is directed to a multiple
wavelength laser system comprising an active laser gain medium
comprising metal vapor, means for exciting the medium to
produce laser radiation at a plurality of wavelengths, means
for coaxially transmitting laser radiation at a plurality of
4On pages 5-6 of the answer, the evidentiary basis for
this rejection is stated to be “Piper in combination with
Bricks et al and Schachar et al as applied to claim 19 above,
and further in view of Cahuzac.” Since Kung was part of the
evidentiary basis for the rejection of independent claim 19,
and since claim 20 depends from claim 19, we consider that the
examiner inadvertently failed to include Kung in the statement
of the rejection of claim 20 on pages 5-6 of the answer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007