Ex Parte Roeth et al - Page 6

               Appeal 2006-2726                                                                            
               Application 10/213,507                                                                      
               mechanism for the exciter filters E1 and E2 in Hanamura would not be                        
               capable of providing at least some unfiltered light along with light filtered               
               by either exciter filter.                                                                   
                      We recognize that if the Examiner’s proposed modification renders                    
               the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the Examiner has failed              
               to make a prima facie case of obviousness.  See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,                 
               221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  But by appropriately mounting a                            
               pivotable mechanism such as that suggested by Stankewitz with respect to                    
               the light path in Hanamura, the skilled artisan would have recognized that                  
               either filtered or unfiltered light could be obtained by inserting either filter            
               E1 or E2 into the light path, or none at all.  In our view, utilizing such a                
               mechanism would hardly have rendered Hanamura unsatisfactory for its                        
               intended purpose.2                                                                          
                      The Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11 and 15 is therefore                
               sustained.  Since Appellants have not separately argued the patentability of                
               dependent claims 13, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 30, these claims fall with                 


                                                                                                          
               2 We also note that Stankewitz in Figs. 2a and 2b discloses an alternative                  
               embodiment that translates a rod 10’ with respect to a light path such that                 
               optical components mounted on the rod 10’ are inserted into and retracted                   
               from the light path (Stankewitz, col. 2, l. 63 – col. 3, l. 6).  Although rod 10’           
               does not pivot, we see no reason why the skilled artisan would not have                     
               applied such a teaching to a pivotable rod (e.g., rod 10 in Figs. 1a-1b) to                 
               translate the entire assembly (i.e., pivotable rod 10 and components mounted                
               thereon) to and from a location adjacent the light path.  Translating the entire            
               pivotable assembly would also ensure transmission of unfiltered light (i.e.,                
               by translating the pivotable assembly away from the light path as suggested                 
               in Fig. 2a) in addition to light filtered by either filter (by disposing the                
               pivotable assembly adjacent the light path as suggested in Fig. 2b).                        
                                                    6                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013