Appeal 2007-3322
Application 09/947,094
direction of light emission of the sampling LED is changed, which changes
the function and operation of the invention. That is correct.
The Examiner erroneously determined that Applicants’ specification
does not disclose any advantage to be achieved by the changed direction of
emission from the sampling LED. The Applicants’ specification does
disclose an advantage arising from changing the direction of light emission
from the sampling LED. The specification discusses two problems
associated with prior art devices, evidently not shared by the claimed
invention: (1) the sensor blocking the light from the sampling LED to the
target of illumination, which creates a dark spot, and (2) the sensor and the
sampling LED being placed within a side panel known to be associated with
false readings caused by ambient light. (Specification 3:8-13).
However, the Examiner proceeded to make pertinent findings with
respect to both Rand and Hochstein. It was determined that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have expected the Rand system to perform equally well
whether or not the direction of light emitted from a sampling LED is altered
from that of light emitted from the other LEDs. (Answer 4:19-21). It was
also determined that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the
Hochstein system to perform equally well whether or not the direction of
light emitted from the sampling LED is altered from that of light emitted
from the other LEDs. (Answer 9:15-19). Given the breadth of the
Applicants’ claims, the Applicants have not shown error in the Examiner’s
determination that an altered direction of light emission from a sampling
LED as compared to that of the light emission from other LEDs has no
substantively meaningful effect on the operation of the invention.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013