Appeal No. 2003-0735
Application 09/238,859
contention that the temperature of Kemeny’s AOTF is purposefully
varied as opposed to being maintained at a constant value as
claimed. Our review of Appellants’ specification as well as the
disclosure of Kemeny reveals that, in both cases, acoustic waves
of particular frequencies are applied to the AOTF crystals (TeO2
in both cases) to produce at the AOTF output a desired wavelength
for a particular application, i.e., microscope in Appellants’
case and a spectrometer in Kemeny. Further, in both situations,
the proper operating temperature of the AOTF crystal lies within
a specified range (Kemeny, at column 8, lines 16-19 discloses
this range as between 40-50 degrees Celsius). In our opinion, a
fair reading of the disclosure of Kemeny, in particular the above
cited passage, would indicate that, once a desired AOTF crystal
operating temperature within the specified 40-50 degree C range
is selected, the temperature is maintained to a constant value
within a 1 degree tolerance (which is also Appellants’ tolerance
as disclosed at page 2, line 19 of the specification).
We further find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ contention
that the fact that the disclosures of the admitted prior art,
directed to a microscope, and Kemeny, directed to a spectrometer,
involve different devices would lead away from their combination.
It is apparent to us, however, from the line of reasoning
expressed in the Answer that the Examiner is not suggesting the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007