Appeal No. 2005-2572
Application No. 10/268,809
to be modulated with the resonance frequency of the MR apparatus
into the optical signal lead, the limitation in claim 10
requiring an optical signal lead via which a modulated light
signal is applied to the RF arrangement, and the limitation in
claim 13 requiring the light of a light source to be modulated by
means of a modulator prior to being coupled into the optical
signal lead. The examiner deals with these shortcomings by
submitting that “the use of a modulator prior to converting the
signal is deemed to be a design consideration that fails to
patentably distinguish over the prior art of Lüdeke et al.”
(answer, page 3), but has not cited any evidentiary basis to
support this conclusion.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 10 and 13, and
dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12, as being unpatentable
over Lüdeke.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-18 is
affirmed with respect to claims 4, 5, 7 and 18, and reversed with
respect to claims 1-3, 6 and 8-17 and 18?.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007