Appeal No. 2006-3152 Page 8
Application No. 10/168,492
With respect to claims 30 and 43, which are argued together, appellants argue that
Umemoto fails to teach the part of the claimed invention that recites that the erasure
radiation can be output by a single erasing source. Appellants note that although the
examiner has acknowledged this deficiency in Umemoto, the examiner asserts
obviousness anyway by arguing that a single erasing light source would be an obvious
substitution for two light sources because it would make Umemoto’s system more
compact. Appellants argue that there is no support for these assertions by the examiner.
Appellants suggest that the proposed modification by the examiner would likely result in
a less compact system. Finally, appellants argue that Umemoto fails to teach or suggest
the claimed “control means” of claims 30 and 43 [brief, pages 11-13].
The examiner responds that it was well known in the art that lights with dimmers
exist and that using a light source with a dimmer makes for a compact system [answer,
page 8].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 30 and 43. Even though we
agree with the examiner that light sources having two intensities were well known in the
art, the examiner has failed to explain how a single light source with two intensities could
replace the two separate light sources of Umemoto. In each of the embodiments
disclosed in Umemoto, the two light sources are located at separate locations such that
they can operate in an assembly line fashion. We see no reason, and the examiner has not
offered one, why or how a single light source could take the place of the two separately
located light sources of Umemoto and still perform the assembly line operation taught by
Umemoto. Therefore, the examiner’s reference to a light with a dimmer still fails to
explain how or why Umemoto would have been modified to meet the claimed invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007