Ex Parte KUZUTA - Page 2

         Appeal No. 2000-0737                                                       
         Application No. 08/919,795                                                 

                   a focusing lens for the laser light led to the                   
              parallel rays by the collimator lens and leading the                  
              focused laser light to a laser medium,                                
                   the laser medium for absorbing the laser light and               
              outputting a spontaneous emission light, and                          
                   an optical resonator for confining the spontaneous               
              emission light to make the laser light oscillated by an               
              induced emissions,                                                    
                   wherein the solid state laser device includes a first            
              housing for storing the laser semiconductor and the                   
              collimator lens in a state of positioning them on the same            
              optical axis, and a second housing for storing the focusing           
              lens, the laser medium and the optical resonator in a state           
              of positioning them on the same optical axis, and the                 
              housings are detachable.                                              

              The reference relied upon by the examiner is:                         
         Clark et al. (Clark)             4,730,335         Mar. 08, 1988           
              Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being           
         unpatentable over Clark.                                                   
              The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant            
         with regard to the propriety of this rejection is set forth in             
         the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 13) and the appellant’s brief             
         and reply brief (Paper Nos. 12 and 14, respectively).                      
                               Appellant’s Invention                                
              The invention is described at pages 2 and 3 of the brief.             
                                      Opinion                                       
              After consideration of the positions and arguments                    
         presented by both the examiner and the appellant, we have                  
         concluded that the rejection should not be sustained.                      


                                         2                                          


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007