Appeal No. 2005-0474 4
Application No. 09/966,484
At page 4 of the Answer, the Examiner indicates how the various limitations in
appealed claim 1 are read on the disclosure of Langworthy. In particular, the Examiner
points to the illustration in Langworthy’s Figure 13 along with the accompanying
description beginning at column 6, line 6, of Langworthy. As asserted by the Examiner,
Langworthy discloses, as required by representative claim 1, a lens 10, a CCD image
sensor 20, and a spectrally dispersive element (dichroic mirrors 72, 74, 76, and 78) located
between the lens and the CCD image sensor.
In our view, the Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we find that the
Examiner has as least satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of anticipation.
The burden is, therefore, upon Appellant to come forward with evidence and/or arguments
which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case. Only those arguments actually
made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
Appellant’s arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not shown how
each of the claimed features are present in the disclosure of Langworthy so as to establish
a case of anticipation. In particular, Appellant contends (Brief, pages 5-7; Reply Brief,
page 2) that, unlike the dichroic multiple mirror reflector structure of Langworthy, the
language of claim 1 requires a single dispersive element.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007