Appeal No. 2006-1685
Application No. 10/081,369
applied prior art [answer, pages 5-6]. In addition to the
arguments considered above, appellants argue that the examiner
has failed to provide evidence in support of the findings with
respect to claims 14 and 15. They also argue that the claimed
overlapping feature of the wavelengths would destroy the ability
of Tokuda to distinguish between frequencies [brief, pages 14-
15]. The examiner disagrees with appellants’ position and points
to portions of Kozlowski and Cole in support of the rejection of
claims 14 and 15 [answer, page 10]. Appellants respond that
Yokoi does not make up for the deficiencies in the combination of
Cole and Tokuda [reply brief, page 3].
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007