Appeal No. 2005-2111 14
Application No. 09/827,454
design choice of a phase conjugating means which does not require a separate source of
pump light” (answer-page 27) and because of other advantages disclosed by Vasil’ev.
Appellant contends that Pepper does not show a “single step having the respective
claim limitations” of claim 42. Therefore, appellant concludes that the proposed
combination would not result in the instant claimed subject matter, within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In reply, the examiner contends that Pepper’s laser 20 teaches a transmission of an
interrogating beam from a fiber optic device and that reflector array 16 teaches the
receiving of the interrogating beam at a micro-mirror, while a second beam reflected from
element 16 is the transmission of a second beam from the micro-mirror. The examiner
indicates that column 5, lines 24-61, of Pepper teach the production of a phase conjugate
beam 24 of the second beam received from the micro-mirror by a predetermined phase
conjugator 12.
It is our view that the examiner has presented a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the instant claimed subject matter and that prima facie case has not been
successfully rebutted by appellant.
In particular, the examiner has indicated how each and every claim limitation is
considered to be met by certain elements of Pepper’s Figure 1. Instead of attacking the
examiner’s rationale, as by showing why beam 18 may not be considered to be an
interrogating beam from fiber optic device, or why the second beam reflected from mirror
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007