Appeal No. 1997-2150
Application No. 08/350,777
generation apparatus produces less than 15 fL, a limitation
found lacking from the combination of Villa-Real and Wells.
Becker fails to cure this deficiency. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 13. Additionally, since
claims 2 through 4 and 9 through 11 depend from claims 1 and
8, respectively, and therefore include the same limitations
discussed above, we further cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 2 through 4 and 9 through 11.
The examiner rejects claims 5 and 6 over Villa-Real,
Wells, Becker, and Thorsten. The examiner asserts (Answer,
page 6) that Thorsten teaches that it is well known to form an
array of light sources from lasers. However, Thorsten merely
suggests the equivalence of LEDs and laser diodes as emitters
in an optical communication system. As indicated by
appellants (Brief, page 13), nothing in Thorsten teaches or
suggests the use of an array of lasers to produce an image.
Accordingly, the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. Further, claims 5 and 6 depend
from claim 1 and therefore include the same limitation of the
image generation apparatus's producing less than 15 fL, found
lacking from the combination of Villa-Real, Wells, and Becker.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007