Appeal No. 2000-2041
Application 09/014,148
In the reply brief, Appellants argue that the Examiner has
not overcome the Appellants’ argument by arguing that Li’s
reflector is tunable. Appellants point out the issue is not
whether the reflector can be tuned but rather whether Li teaches
making the required tuning. Appellants argue that the Examiner
has the burden of showing that Li expressly teaches the claim
limitation or that the limitation is inherenty taught under the
rejection of 35 U.S.C. § 102 which is maintained by the Examiner.
“[T]he Board must not only assure that the requisite
findings are made, based on evidence of record, but must also
explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support
the agency’s conclusion,” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 994, 1342-43, 61
USPQ 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Upon our review of Li, we fail to find that Li teaches the
Appellants’ claimed limitation “a variable wavelength reflector
connected to said channel filter for reflecting a portion of the
light leaving said channel filter, said reflected light having a
wavelength equal to a reflection wavelength, said reflection
wavelength being selectable from said first wavelength and a
second wavelength equal to the wavelength of one of said
potential spectral lines” as recited in Appellants’ claim 1. We
note under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the question is not whether the Li
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007