Appeal No. 2006-1649
Application No. 10/212,191
After reviewing the Bengtsson reference in light of the arguments of record,
however, we are in general agreement with the Examiner’s position as stated in the
Answer. Although Appellants attempt to draw a distinction between the claimed
invention and Bengtsson by asserting that the claimed “control point” is “clearly the
setting of the modulator through which light passes to reach the sample” (Brief, page
10), we find precisely such a disclosure in Bengtsson. For example, Bengtsson, at
column 3, lines 57-67, discloses that, while control of laser power at the source is an
alternative control parameter, a clear disclosure of the adjustment of the amount of light
passing through a modulator in the form of an attenuator 16, which includes an array of
filters and polarizers, is provided.2
We also find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ contention (Brief, page 10) that
Bengtsson fails to disclose the adjustment of detector gain in response to the
adjustment of a control point. As illustrated, for example, at step 416 in Bengtsson’s
Figure 4 flow chart and described beginning at column 6, line 44 of Bengtsson, the
amount of detector gain is adjusted in response to the adjustment of laser power
effected through the control of attenuator 16 (Bengtsson, column 7, lines 1-5).
We further find to be without merit Appellants’ argument (Reply Brief, pages 4-6)
that Bengtsson does not provide for control point adjustment “to reduce an effect on
scale factor” as claimed. As described by Bengtsson (column 6, line 49 through column
7, line 9), power attenuation is adjusted to reduce the saturation effect on excited pixels.
2 Appellants’ specification (page 13, line 24) describes electro-optic
modulator (EOM) 110 as a “power attenuator.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007