Appeal No. 1998-2473
Application No. 08/556,890
that power, we find ourselves in agreement with the examiner that Figure 3 of the reference
discloses maximum, or “optimum” power at the focal point, at the origin of the coordinate
system. As disclosed at column 7, lines 28-31 of the reference, focus of the beam is
controlled (which clearly suggests that the lens is moved to effect this focus) and the power
of the beam is also controlled to an optimum fifty-percent duty cycle level. Thus, there is a
relationship between the duty cycle and focus for a constant maximum power applied to
the laser [column 5, lines 53-54]. It appears that there is some relationship between the
duty cycle and the dither frequency. Accordingly, it appears reasonable for the examiner to
conclude that there is some measure of power of the signal at the dither frequency in
Wilkinson and, although contested by appellants, appellants have pointed to nothing that is
convincing to the contrary.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Wilkinson. Again, we do not contend that there may not be better arguments
that could have been made regarding the unobviousness of the claimed subject matter
over Wilkinson but, to whatever extent such arguments may exist, appellants have not
made them.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007