Appeal No. 2006-1685
Application No. 10/081,369
bandpass filter. Although Tokuda teaches two detectors, they
cannot be applied to Cole’s device to achieve the claimed
invention for reasons argued by appellants in the briefs.
With respect to the rejection of claims 5-8 and 12 based on
Cole, Tokuda, Hier, and Kozlowski, the examiner has indicated how
these claims are deemed to be obvious over the applied prior art
[answer, pages 4-5]. In addition to the arguments considered
above, appellants argue that the examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. They also argue that the
claimed overlapping feature of the wavelengths would destroy the
ability of Tokuda to distinguish between frequencies [brief,
pages 13-14]. The examiner disagrees with appellants’ position
and points to findings in support of the rejection [answer, pages
9-10]. Appellants respond that Hier and Kozlowski do not make up
for the deficiencies in the combination of Cole and Tokuda [reply
brief, page 2].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims
for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in the briefs
and for the reasons discussed above. We agree with appellants
that Hier and Kozlowski do not overcome the deficiencies in the
main combination discussed above.
With respect to the rejection of claims 10, 11, 13-17, 19,
23, and 24 based on Cole, Tokuda, and Yokoi, the examiner has
indicated how these claims are deemed to be obvious over the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007