Appeal No. 2001-0413
Application No. 09/182,404
prior art reference does not perform the functions defined in the claims. Compare In re
Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977); In re Ludtke, 441
F.2d 660, 664, 169 USPQ 563, 566-67 (CCPA 1971). Here, we find that appellant has
met this burden, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant argues that Klainman fails to teach (or suggest)1 a method for directing
a stream of air onto a portion of a rotating deflector element (using a fan assembly) and
fails to teach a method for directing a stream of air onto a portion of a beam deflection
assembly to reduce artifacts in the recorded image as recited in the independent
claims. (See brief at page 3.) While we find the language of the claims to be quite
broad, we agree with appellant that the disclosure of Klainman does not teach directing
a stream of air at the rotating element or at any portion of the beam deflection
assembly. From our review of the teachings of Klainman, Klainman teaches at columns
1-2 and 3 that it is desirable to provide forced air across the path of a laser beam to
eliminate variations in the index of refraction of the air layer in the optical path using a
pancake type fan. Additionally, Klainman teaches that the fan may be located adjacent
the optical path in the region where the beam is at its maximum width to enable a
maximum mixing effect of the air through which the beam passes.
1 Here, we note that appellant argues that Klainman also does not suggest the claimed invention.
We make no finding regarding the obviousness of the claimed invention in light of the teachings of
Klainman.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007