Appeal No. 2003-1509
Application 09/853,575
Claim 43
Claim 43 includes the limitations of the other independent
claims and further defines an "optical switch" in the preamble
and "an optical pickup arranged to optically communicate with
said luminescent material" in the claim body. The "optical
pickup" is shown in appellants' Fig. 6.
Because we conclude that the combination of Crossland and
Appeldorn '643 does not suggest the limitations of an optical
fiber, a luminescent material, and a notch formed in the optical
fiber to direct radiant energy within the optical fiber toward
the luminescent material, for the reasons discussed in connection
with the rejection of claims 1-5, 19, and 20, it does not make
obvious the subject matter of claim 43 without the optical
pickup. Thus, the rejection of claim 43 is reversed.
Nevertheless, we comment on the examiner's rejection.
The examiner states that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized the advantages of incorporating an optical
pickup in Crossland and, hence, adding an optical pickup to
Crossland would have been obvious (FR5). The examiner provides
no factual support for this statement.
Appellants argue that the examiner's assertion finds no
bases in any of the references and that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have no reason for incorporating an optical pickup
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007