Appeal No. 2006-2572
Application No. 10/437,569
spacer/prism. In the combination of the teachings, this would have been the same element
with a longer path for the light signal as suggested by Graber.
Appellants argue at page 4 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner fails to indicate how
a plurality of reflective surfaces would be incorporated into the prism of Feng and that the
optical path change would be negligible. We find that while the small change may be
negligible in Appellants’ view, we find that a small change in a small device is not
necessarily “negligible” as Appellants’ maintain. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive. Furthermore, we find no express limitation as to the path of the light signal or to
the specific orientation as to the reflective surfaces. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive.
Appellants argue at page 5 of the Reply Brief that Feng teaches away from the
proposed modification since Feng teaches reducing light signal loss. While we agree with
Appellants that Feng does teach this reduction is desirable, we find that the discussion is with
respect to the conventional distinct component systems in Figure 3 which is not expressly on
point with respect to the embodiment of Figure “5A” and “5B” of Feng which integrates
various elements into a single element. Therefore, we cannot agree that Feng teaches away
from the combination of the teachings. Therefore, we find that Appellants have not shown
error in the prima facie case of obviousness as set forth by the Examiner, and we will sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 5-9 grouped therewith by
Appellants.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007