Appeal No. 2005-0644 4
Application No. 09/804,522
We agree with appellant’s arguments. All that Maekawa discloses is a mirror 17
for collecting light from LED 16 (Figure 5) or lenses 21, 30 and 31 for collecting light
from LED 29 (Figure 9). Maekawa is silent as to whether the mirror and lenses collect
“nearly all of the light from the LED” as recited in the claims on appeal. The examiner’s
comment (answer, page 7) that Maekawa “does reasonably suggest an LED
illumination source device, including an optical element for collecting nearly all of the
light from the LED” would be helpful in an obviousness rejection, but not an anticipation
rejection. The record before us is completely devoid of any evidence to support the
examiner’s assertions (answer, pages 8 and 9) that Maekawa “intends the LED
illumination source disclosed in the flow particle detection device to direct a majority, if
not all, of its emitted light toward the collimating lens 30 such that the collimating lens 30
collects nearly all of the light from the LED illumination source,” and that “[t]he highly
collimated, highly directional nature of the emitted light from the illumination light source
(See 29 in Figure 9) allows the collimating lens (See 30 in Figure 9) to collect nearly all
of the light from that illumination light source.” We especially disagree with the
examiner’s assertion (answer, page 9) that “[c]laims 1 and 7 fail to set forth any
distinguishing structural or positional limitations . . . that allow an optical element to
collect nearly all the light from an LED.” The claims on appeal broadly recite “an optical
element” for accomplishing such a task.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007