Appeal No. 2006-1058
Application No. 10/034,073
limitation is not recited in the appealed claims and appellants'
specification does not establish such a definition of a half
sawtooth wave.
Concerning the § 103 rejection of claim 2, we find no error
in the examiner's reasoning that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious "to form a grating having a duty
ratio of .5, as is taught to be know [sic, known] from Kataoka et
al, motivated by the fact that it is known that the efficiency of
the grating is dependent upon the spacing thereof" (page 4 of
Answer, penultimate paragraph). We note that appellants rely
primarily upon the arguments presented against the § 102
rejections over Okayama and Kataoka. We note that appellants
base no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such
as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007