Ex parte WAGNER - Page 2

              Appeal No. 1997-1899                                                                                         
              Application No. 08/407,145                                                                                   


                     The appellant's invention relates to a wavelength-tunable eye protection device to                    
              protect a user’s eye from a laser light source.  An understanding of the invention can be                    
              derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.                                      
                     1.     An eye protection device for protection against light from a source  of light,                 
              said device comprising:                                                                                      
                     a wavelength-tunable filter for passing at least one wavelength selected in response                  
              to a control signal;                                                                                         
                     mounting means for mounting said filter before at least one eye of a user; and                        
                     control means coupled to said filter for setting said passing wavelength to a                         
              wavelength other than a wavelength at which said light source emits.                                         

                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                       
              appealed claims are:                                                                                         
              Burbo et al. (Burbo)                       4,202,601             May 13, 1980                                
              Gunning, III et al. (Gunning, III)                4,508,964      Apr. 02, 1985                               

                     Claims 1-4  stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over                           
              Burbo in view of Gunning, III.                                                                               
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                     
              appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's                          

                     2The examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 5-7 in the supplemental answer at page 3 and           
              objected to these claims as dependent on a rejected base claim.                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007