Appeal 2007-1843
Application 10/174,640
Neuberger was cited by the Examiner for a teaching “(column 2, lines
30-32) that diode lasers are either pulsed or continuous wave” (Answer 7).
PRINCIPLE OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
ANALYSIS
As indicated supra, Hunt uses a fixed visible input and a tunable
frequency input in the infrared range; whereas, the claims on appeal use a
fixed visible input and a tunable frequency input in the visible range.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Anticipation has not been established by the Examiner1 for claims 1 to
6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 21 to 23, 26, and 27. Obviousness has not been established
for claims 7, 15, 24, 25, and 29 because the rationale presented by the
Examiner does not demonstrate that the claims would have been obvious
based on the teachings of the applied references.
1 The Examiner recognizes that other embodiments in Hunt may use different
combinations of input frequencies (col. 1. ll. 46 to 48), and that “there are no
restrictions on the signal frequencies” (col. 3, ll. 49 and 50). Although such
teachings may be used in an obviousness rationale, they do not, however,
support an anticipation rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013