Ex Parte Roeth et al - Page 4

               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