Appeal No. 2002-1474 Page 21
Application No. 09/002,927
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness of claims 7, 8, 24, and 25, which
has not been sufficiently rebutted by appellants. The rejection
of claims 7, 8, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is therefore
affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 9 and 26.
Appellants assert (brief, page 13) that these claims recite,
inter alia, an optical beacon. From our review of these claims,
we agree with appellants that claims 9 and 26 each require an
optical beacon. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims
9 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as we
reversed the rejection of claim 3, supra.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 15-17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Furuya in view of Liebesny
and Nanba. We reverse the rejection of claims 15-17 as the
examiner has not shown how Nanba makes up for the deficiencies of
the basic combination of Furuya and Liebesny with respect to
claim 11, from which claims 15-17 depend.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007