Appeal 2006-2726
Application 10/213,507
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the
factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a
whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In
re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding independent claims 11 and 15, the Examiner's rejection
essentially finds that Hanamura teaches every claimed feature except for a
positive coupling for the opposite-direction insertion motions of the
wavelength-selective filter and/or the light protection filter. The Examiner
notes that Hanamura inserts and retracts two filters E1 and E2 into a light
path using solenoids. The Examiner, however, cites Stankewitz as teaching
a positive coupling that supports two optical systems on a pivoting rod. The
coupling places one optical system in a light path while removing the other
from the light path. The Examiner then concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include such a coupling in the arrangement of Hanamura for positive
coupling of opposite-direction insertion motions of Hanamura’s retractable
filters. Such a modification, according to the Examiner, would reduce
mechanical components (Answer 3-5).
Appellants argue that modifying Hanamura with Stankewitz’s
alternate inserting/removing mechanism would impermissibly render
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013