Appeal No. 2005-2572
Application No. 10/268,809
is not persuasive. Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 4 as being anticipated by
Lüdeke.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of dependent claims 5 and 7 as being anticipated by
Lüdeke since the appellant has not challenged such with any
reasonable specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or
fall with parent claim 4 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572,
2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 14 and 18, and dependent
claims 15-17, as being anticipated by Lüdeke. In short, Lüdeke
does not meet the limitations in claims 14 and 18 requiring an
optoelectrical converter for converting the light signal to a
photocurrent “which triggers resonance in the resonance [sic,
resonant] circuit.”
Finally, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of independent claim 18 as being anticipated by Lüdeke.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007