Appeal No. 96-0346
Application 08/007,511
noted language. Therefore, this second optical isolator, even
though it is structurally identical to the first optical
isolator, does not alone clearly duplicate the function of the
first, contrary to the position set forth by the examiner in the
answer and is, therefore, as well factually distinguishing over
the situation in St. Regis.
We also find no teaching or suggestion or line of reasoning
advanced by the examiner, other than that expressed on the basis
of St. Regis, for the artisan to have placed two of any one of
the optical isolators of Chang’s five embodiments in series.
Thus, we find the record deficient of any reasoning or
motivation in the art provided to have two optical isolators in
series, with the first birefringent element of the second optical
isolator having an optical axis rotated by 90 degrees in a normal
direction of rotation, which effectively causes the ordinary and
extraordinary rays to have equal optical path lengths. Simply
stated, additional evidence or references are necessry for us to
agree with the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness within 35
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007