Appeal No. 97-0544 Page 4
Application No. 08/177,108
Mori et al. (Mori) 0420574A2 Apr. 3,
1991
(European Patent Application)
Omar 0561302A1 Sep.
22, 1993
(European Patent Application)
“The Applications of Holography,” Caulfield et al.
(Caulfield), Wiley-Interscience, © 1970, pp. 80-83.
Claims 16-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
indefinite. Claims 16-22, 24, and 26-29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Smith in view of Dorfman,
Shantz, and Caulfield. Claims 16, 23, and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Smith in view of
Dorfman, Shantz, Caulfield, and Daly. Claims 16, 23, and 30
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Smith in
view of Dorfman, Shantz, and Caulfield further in view of Mori
or Omar. Rather than repeat the arguments of the appellants
or examiner in toto, we refer the reader to the brief and the
answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007