Appeal No. 1997-2990
Application 08/260,318
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made
by appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
This rejection is set forth by the examiner on pages
5-12 of the Final Rejection which is incorporated into the
examiner’s answer. Simply stated, the examiner finds that the
combined teachings of Suganuma and Miller teach all the
features of the claimed invention except for the provision in
the beam splitter of transition zones which gradually change
from full reflection to full transmission. The examiner
indicates that this provision is well known to reduce the
effects of diffraction, and the examiner cites Coale as
evidence of this assertion.
After discussing the individual teachings of each of
the references, appellant argues that there is no suggestion
within these references that they should be combined in the
manner proposed by the examiner. Specifically, appellant
notes that neither Suganuma nor Miller even mentions
diffraction, and appellant argues that there is no motivation
to apply the diffraction grating teachings of Coale to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007