Appeal No. 1997-2990
Application 08/260,318
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the obviousness rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed
and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that claim 1 complies with the requirements of the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claims 1 and 2. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claim 1 under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The rejection states,
There is no antecedent basis for “the
completely transparent” and “the completely
reflective” segments of the beam splitter
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007