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 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013