Appeal 2007-1843
Application 10/174,640
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Tang U.S. 4,639,923 Jan. 27, 1987
Hunt U.S. 5,623,341 Apr. 22, 1997
Neuberger U.S. 5,658,148 Aug. 19, 1997
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 21 to 23, 26, and
27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Hunt. The
Examiner rejected claims 7, 15, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Hunt and Tang. The Examiner rejected claims 24 and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Hunt and Neuberger.
Appellant contends inter alia that Hunt uses a fixed frequency in the
visible range and a tunable infrared frequency to generate a difference-
frequency in the visible range (Br. 10 to 13).
ISSUE
Does Hunt teach a fixed frequency in the visible range and a tunable
infrared frequency?
FINDINGS OF FACT
In a preferred embodiment, Hunt indicates that “the fixed frequency is
in the visible range and the tunable frequency is in the infrared range” (col.
7, ll. 20 to 22; col. 10, ll. 16 to 18).
Tang was cited by the Examiner for a teaching that “an optical
parametric oscillator and amplifier have a tunable output from the ultraviolet
to the near infrared (e.g., 6 mW at 1220nm; column 7, lines 35-40)”
(Answer 7).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013