Appeal No. 2003-1509
Application 09/853,575
Appeldorn '876 (and Appeldorn '643) teaches that light is
reflected through the side wall of the optical fiber transversely
opposite from the notch. Therefore, we find no suggestion to
mount a reflective coating on the optical fiber transversely
opposite from the notch as recited in claim 4.
As to claim 43, we agree with the examiner's claim
interpretation that "optical switch" in the preamble does not
positively require a switch as part of the combination because it
is not referred to in the body of the claim. The term "optical
pickup" has not been defined by either the examiner or
appellants: it could mean just a piece of optical fiber that
picks up and transmits light from the luminescent material and
does not necessarily imply any switching function. Nevertheless,
no structure that could be considered an optical pickup is shown
in Crossland. We do not agree with the examiner that such a
limitation can be dismissed as obvious without a reference.
Accordingly, claim 43 is not rejected.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-5, 19, 20, and 43 based on
obviousness-type double patenting is sustained.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 19, 20, and 43 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
A new ground of rejection has been entered as to claims 1-3,
5, 19, and 20.
- 18 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007