Appeal No. 2007-0400
Application 10/788,054
THE REFERENCE AND REJECTION
The sole reference relied on by the Examiner is:
Vujkovic-Cvijin US 6,631,019 B1 Oct, 7, 2003
(filed Jul. 5, 2000)
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 16-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by the reference.
THE ISSUE
Does the reference disclose using respective photodiodes to monitor the
output power of an active laser and of a passive laser, as required by claim 1?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is a question of fact. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “To anticipate a claim, a prior art
reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly
or inherently” (id).
An appellant's burden on appeal with respect to a rejection for anticipation is
to identify at least one claimed element that the examiner has failed to show is
expressly or inherently disclosed in the reference. See Gechter v. Davidson,
116 F.3d 1454, 1460, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[W]e expect that
the Board's anticipation analysis be conducted on a limitation by limitation basis,
with specific fact findings for each contested limitation and satisfactory
explanations for such findings.") (emphasis added). Cf. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d
1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“On appeal to the Board, an
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013