Appeal No. 2004-2153
Application No. 09/923,510
in support of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No.
10, filed October 14, 2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed
March 29, 2004) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims1,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
the examiner’s § 103 rejection will not be sustained. Our
reasoning follows.
In the rejection of claims 9, 10, 12 through 14 and 22
through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner urges (answer,
pages 3-7) that Willebrand discloses a system for optical
communication of a data stream between first and second data
devices generally like that claimed by appellants and includes an
optical wireless link that provides data and control information
1
1Notwithstanding the examiner’s indication on page 2 of the
answer that the copy of the appealed claims appearing in the
Appendix to appellants’ brief is correct, we note that a copy of
claim 14, which both appellants and the examiner indicate to be
part of this appeal, does not appear in the Appendix. Dependent
claim 14 appears in appellants’ original submission of claims
filed August 6, 2001.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007