Appeal 2007-1710
Application 10/098,016
Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. “One of the ways in which a patent’s
subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the
time of the invention a known problem for which there was an obvious
solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at
1397.
ANALYSIS
First Issue.
Appellants’ contentions with regard to the fist issue have persuaded us
of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Claim 1 recites
“coupling-in a light beam of the optical system at a coupling-in point into a
device for adjusting the light beam and thereby generating a coupled-in light
beam in the device.” Thus, the scope of claim 1 includes that there are two
light beams “a light beam of the optical system” (referred to throughout the
claim as the optical beam) and “a coupled-in light beam.” Claim 1 further
recites “directing the coupled-in light beam to at least two photo detectors
wherein each of the photo detectors is mounted on a housing part of the
device and disposed apart from the beam path at different distances from the
coupling-in point.” Thus, the scope of claim 1 includes the coupled-in light
beam being directed to two photo detectors, mounted at different distances
from the couple-in point. Further, claim 1 recites “adjusting at least one
optical element of the optical system to bring the coupled in light beam into
the nominal position, therefore adjusting the light beam to propagate along
the beam path in the optical system.” Thus, claim 1 recites that an optical
element is adjusted to adjust the position of the coupled-in light beam and
the light beam (of the optical system).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013