Appeal 2006-2416
Application 09/988,660
In other words, only one color correction capability is recited in claim
4. Among the teachings of Amos and Ben-Menachem, there is also an
additional recognition that holographic optical elements are known in the art
to focus infrared energy on a color plane. As to Amos, Appellants’
arguments at the top of page 9 recognize “at best Amos, [color] corrects
multiple bands of energy that are much closer in wavelength than that
claimed.” In other words, Appellants recognize that Amos teaches a
capability of color correcting multiple bands of energy but not those
specifically recited.
The Examiner’s position specifically relies upon Ben-Menachem as
evidence of the ability to focus on a common focal plane infrared energy but
also to do so in identified band ranges set forth at the end of claim 4 on
appeal. Even if Appellants’ characterization of Ben-Menachem is correct
that this reference only teaches the capability of operating in one of these
bands or the other but not both as claimed, the Examiner’s position is correct
in our view that, in view of the compelling broad banded teachings of Amos,
the artisan would have found it obvious to have utilized the specific
wavelength ranges specified by Ben-Menachem. To this reasoning we add
as well our initial recognition earlier in this opinion that the artisan knows
that the specified ranges are well known in the art anyway. In view of
Appellants’ approach to arguing the merits of the first stated rejection, we
agree with the Examiner’s observation in the responsive argument portion of
the Answer beginning at page 6 that Appellants are arguing Ben-Menachem
and Amos separately and not considering their collective teachings within 35
U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013