Appeal No. 2000-2041
Application 09/014,148
reflection wavelength, said reflection wavelength being
selectable from said first wavelength and a second wavelength
equal to the wavelength of one of said spectral lines.1
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Li 5,841,918 Nov. 24, 1998
Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Li.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs2 and the answer for the
details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 7 are anticipated
by Li.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
1 We note that the brief provides a copy of claim 1. This
claim includes the phrase “said potential spectral lines.”
However the claim above which is present in the application only
recites “said spectral lines”.
2 Appellants filed an appeal brief on December 14, 1999.
Appellants filed a reply brief on March 20, 2000. The Examiner
mailed an office communication on May 8, 2000, stating that the
reply brief has been entered and considered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007