Appeal No. 1999-0236
Application 08/624,173
subject matter of claim 6 except for the use of intersecting
beams from at least two laser diodes, which the Examiner
concludes is not recited. The Examiner finds that Honda and
Hanson teach intersecting beams and concludes (EA6): "One of
ordinary skill in the art when considering the problem of
focusing plural illumination [?] would have first looked to
the prior art and found that Honda and Hanson provide
solutions that would have been obvious to employ with the
Sherman system concept at the time the invention was made."
We refer to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11) (pages
referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the Examiner's
position, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 10) (pages
referred to as "Br__") and the reply brief (Paper No. 12)
(pages referred to as "RBr__") for Appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Grouping of claims - claim 1 as representative claim
rejection since the Examiner's reasoning was not presented
earlier. New grounds of rejection in the examiner's answer
were prohibited at the time the examiner's answer was entered.
See 37 CFR § 1.193(a)(2) (amended October 10, 1997). In view
of the age of the appeal, we decide the appeal rather than
remanding.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007