Appeal 2007-1710
Application 10/098,016
disposed apart from the beam path of the optical system at different
distances from the coupling-in point and a beam splitter arranged along the
optical axis of the device in the coupled-in beam and directing the coupled-
in beam to one of the photo detectors. Thus, claim 8 does identify two
beams, the light beam of the optical system and the coupled-in light beam,
where the coupled-in beam traverses at least one beam splitter that directs
the light to a photo detector.
As discussed in our finding of facts, there are numerous beams paths
in Nishio. Fact 2. The only limitation in claim 8, directed to the light beam
of the optical system recites that it is coupled in, by the means for coupling-
in and that the beam path is apart (away) from two of the photo detectors.
We consider Nishio’s beam splitter 3-1 to meet the claimed means for
coupling-in and the beam path from laser (item 1), to mirror (item 11)
through beam splitter (item 3-1) to photo detector (item 4-1) to meet
Appellants’ claimed light beam of the optical system. This beam path
traverses a means for coupling-in (beam splitter item 3-1) and is apart from
the photo detectors (items 4-2 and 18). Further, we consider the beam 2a
which emanates from the means for coupling-in (beam splitter 3-1) to meet
Appellants’ claimed coupled-in light beam. This beam has a beam splitter
item 3-2 arranged along its optical axis and directs the coupled-in beam to
one of the two photo detectors (item 4-2) that are apart from the light beam
of the optical system. Thus, on the first issue, whether Nishio teaches a
coupled-in beam as recited in the claims, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as we find that
Nishio teaches a coupled-in beam as recited in claim 8.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013