Appeal No. 1999-1931
Application No. 08/734,319
of the subject from being fogged in its entirety or losing image edge
sharpness.
Appellant argues that Monma addresses a completely different problem than that of
the subject invention and that the methods of addressing these different problems are,
themselves, completely different [brief-page 4]. In particular, appellant argues that
whereas Monma uses a switched bias scheme for laser diodes that corrects for laser
droop while avoiding problems that result from using a constant bias level, the instant
invention teaches a system in which a laser is turned ON and OFF slightly earlier when a
“solid” image is produced so as to more accurately locate the edge placement. Appellant
argues that “Monma...do not teach early turn on or early turn off, while the subject invention
does not teach a bias level droop improvement. Therefore, adding the edge detector of
Hirota to Monma...still does not render the subject invention obvious” [brief-bottom of page
4].
While we do not find appellant’s arguments to be a beacon of clarity with regard to
particularly pointing out the differences between the instant claimed invention and that
disclosed by Monma, we will, nevertheless, reverse the examiner’s rejections since, in our
view, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
While Monma does teach, with regard to a laser diode, an operation earlier than, or
in front of, a leading edge of a subject, it is clear, from column 2 of Monma, that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007