Appeal 2007-1710
Application 10/098,016
coupling-in” (beam splitter 3-1) and at least two photo detectors. Fact 9.
Further, as discussed in our findings of fact, we find that Nishio inherently
discloses a mountable device. Fact 10. Thus, on the second issue, whether
the claim limitations directed to a mountable device define over Nishio,
Appellants’ arguments have not convinced us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 8. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 8 and dependent claims 8 through 12 and 18 through 21 similarly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being anticipated by Nishio.
With respect to dependent claims 13 through 17 which stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Nishio in view of
Edwards, Appellants separately argue that this rejection is in error.
Appellants assert that the Examiner has not cited portions of the reference
where the motivation to combine the reference can be found. Brief p. 5.
Further, Appellants argue that Edwards is non-analogous art as it is directed
to a coordinate measuring machine and Nishio is directed to a device to
record on disks.
Claim 13 depends upon claim 8 and recites a display on which the
deviation of the coupled-in light beam from nominal position is shown in
graphical or numerical format. The Examiner finds that this is not taught by
Nishio but relies upon Edwards to provide a teaching of such a display.
Answer p. 6. The Examiner states on page 8 of the Answer:
As understood, a display connected to a computer is well
known as taught by Edwards et al. Displays connected to
a computer are conventionally used because it allows
data to be manipulated and shown to a user in real-time.
Furthermore, a user more easily assimilates a visual
display of data on a monitor. As understood, one of
ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the advantages
of using a display connected to a computer as claimed to
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013