Ex parte WAGNER - Page 2




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


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                             

                     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                               

                                 2                                                                                         
                     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.                                              
                                                            2                                                              





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007