Appeal No. 1998-2465
Application No. 08/599,192
Reference is made to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 8,
mailed September 25, 1997) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 12, mailed April 1, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant's
Brief (Paper No. 11, filed February 27, 1998) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 13, filed June 5, 1998) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1,
3, 4, 7, 13 through 19, 21 through 23, and 28.
As a preliminary matter we note that all of the claims
recite a prism comprising a fluoropolymer material and a light
source with a center wavelength in the infrared range. As all
arguments pertain to the obviousness of combining an infrared
light source with a fluoropolymer prism, the discussion below
applies to all of the claims.
The only issue in this case is whether it would have been
obvious to use the infrared LED of Beauvais as the light
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007