Appeal No. 1998-1472 Page 13
Application No. 08/427,721
(citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888
(Fed. Cir. 1991)).
As mentioned regarding the novelty of claims 1-3, 34, 35,
and 178, Takeda shows beams traveling in similar directions.
Similarly, although Bjorklund teaches writing a hologram, fig.
2, using “two separate beams (#1 and #2)”, col. 1, l. 44, the
beams do not travel in opposite directions. To the contrary,
the beams #1 and #2 travel in similar directions.
Specifically, figure 1a of the reference shows that both beams
travel from the same beam splitter, Id. at ll. 44-45, to the
same side of a rotating disk 2 of a recording medium. Id. at
ll. 46-48. The examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that
Murakami or Hugle remedies this defect.
Because Takeda and Bjorklund show beams traveling in
similar directions, we are not persuaded that teachings from
the prior art would appear to have suggested the claimed
limitations of “creating the holographic grating at any one of
the plural locations within the disk via a plane-wave light
beam in conjunction with a counterpropagating focused light
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007