Appeal No. 1998-1814 Page 5
Application No. 08/347,814
rejections advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the brief and at the Oral Hearing,
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
We begin with the rejection of claims 110-177 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Starting with claim 110, the
claim language at issue is "detector means ... producing ... signal
means representative of ... wavelength stabilization means of said
light source means." The examiner takes the position (answer, page
3) that "[t]he claim language is incorrect in that the detector does
not produce wavelength stabilization means. From the Figures, it
appears that the locking mixers and lockings [sic] somehow produce
wavelength stabilization of the laser, not the detector." In
response, the appellants direct our attention to the following
language in the specification (page 9, lines 17-18) "[t]he detector
may also provide demodulation." The appellants assert (brief, page
7) that "[t]his description of the detector encompasses the specific
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007