Appeal No. 2005-0474 5
Application No. 09/966,484
After careful review of the Langworthy reference in light of the arguments of record,
however, we are in agreement with the Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer. Aside
from the fact that, as pointed out by the Examiner (Answer, pages 5 and 6), there is no
language in claim 1 requiring a “single” dispersive element, we fail to see why the dichroic
mirror structure of Langworthy would not be considered “a dispersive element” as claimed.
It is noteworthy that Langworthy characterizes the disclosed dichroic mirror structure as
“an optical device” (Langworthy, column 2, line 51 and column 6, line 12), a device which,
in accordance with Appellant’s definition of a spectrally dispersive element (specification,
page 3), disperses white light into a spectrum including red, green and blue portions.
We also make the observation that, although the Examiner made specific reference
to the structure illustrated in Figure 13 of Langworthy, other drawing figures in Langworthy
describe structure which, in our view, clearly and unambiguously satisfies even Appellant’s
unduly restrictive interpretation of “a dispersive element.”2 For example, Figure 12 of
Langworthy describes a single color separation grating 70 which separates incoming light
into red and blue portions.
Lastly, we have reviewed Summit Technology, 363 F.3d 1219, 70 USPQ2d 1276
(Fed. Cir. 2004) cited in support of Appellant’s position at page 5 of the Brief. We find little
relevance between the discussed issue of whether a physically combined series of pulses
2 It is apparent that the Examiner relied on the structure described and illustrated in Figure 13 of
Langworthy because of the disclosed feature of a Bayer checkerboard filter pattern 22 on the image
sensor 20, a structural feature which, in actuality, is not present in representative claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007