Appeal No. 2001-1208
Application No. 09/057,585
through 12) that the wedge prism 16 is needed in Burstyn to force
the light to travel in a straight line through the two prisms,
and that the examiner has not provided any evidence to support
the theory that the wedge prism 16 is not needed in the structure
disclosed by Burstyn. We agree with appellant’s arguments.
Burstyn clearly discloses (column 2, line 49 through column 3,
line 4) that the geometry of the wedge prism 16 was chosen to
pass the beam of light along “substantially a straight line
. . . .” In the absence of evidence in the record that the
structure disclosed by Burstyn will still function without wedge
prism 16 to pass the same beam of light in a “substantially
straight line,” we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 8.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 9 through 26 and
29 is likewise reversed because the teachings of van den Brandt
‘730, van den Brandt ‘184 and Levis fail to cure the noted
shortcoming in the teachings of Burstyn.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), respectively, is
affirmed. The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2
through 6, 8 through 26, 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007