Appeal No. 2003-0735
Application 09/238,859
With respect to representative independent claim 2, the
Examiner, as the basis for the obviousness rejection, proposes to
modify the disclosure of the admitted prior art. According to
the Examiner (Answer, page 4), the admitted prior art discloses
the claimed invention, including a recognition of the need to
maintain AOTF temperature at a constant value, except for a
temperature gauge provided in the environment of the AOTF and a
heater controller to control the AOTF temperature so that it
remains at a constant value. To address these deficiencies, the
Examiner turns to the Kemeny reference which describes a heater
controller (166) for an AOTF which maintains, in response to a
temperature sensor (167, 170), the temperature of the AOTF to
constant value within a 1 degree tolerance. According to the
Examiner (id.), the skilled artisan would have been motivated and
found it obvious to add a temperature sensor, a heater, and
heater controller as taught by Kemeny to the device of the
admitted prior art “. . . in order to be able to provide
corrections for variations in the temperature of the AOTF, as
already suggested by Kemeny . . . .”
After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis, it is our view that
such analysis carefully points out the teachings of the admitted
prior art and the Kemeny reference, reasonably indicates the
perceived differences between this applied prior art and the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007