Appeal 2007-1710
Application 10/098,016
Appellants reason that the beams 2a, 2b-1 and 2b-2 are directed to only one
detector whereas in the claimed invention, the light in optical system travels
along a separate axis. Brief pp. 3-4. Appellants also argue that Nishio does
not teach a separate “mountable” device. Appellants assert that the claims
recite two separate units whereas Nishio teaches one unit. Further,
Appellants argue that Nishio “fails to disclose that the detectors are
mountable on the housing of the separate mountable device for adjusting”
and that in Nishio the detectors are not mounted in the housing. Brief p. 4.
In response, the Examiner states, on page 7 of the Answer, that Nishio
teaches a light beam, item 2, coupled-in (at item 11) to a device for adjusting
the beam and that the claims do not identify the coupled-in beam as spatially
separate. Answer p. 7. The Examiner also states that claim 1 does not recite
that the device is mountable. Answer p. 7. With regard to claim 8, the
Examiner finds that the device of Nishio is capable of being mounted, and
thus finds that Nishio teaches a mountable device for adjusting. Answer p.
7. Additionally, on page 8 of the Answer, the Examiner finds that claim 8
does not recite a “separate” mounting device. Finally, the Examiner finds:
“[t]he photo detectors (4-1 and 4-2) of Nishio et al. are inherently mounted
on a housing part of a device (30). That is, the photo detectors do not float
in thin air, but must be mounted somehow (via a support, frame or interior)
to device 30.”
Thus, the contentions of Appellants and the Examiner present us with
two issues: first whether Nishio teaches a coupled-in beam as recited in the
claims and second whether the claim limitations directed to a mountable
device define over Nishio.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013