Appeal No. 1997-2990
Application 08/260,318
Suganuma or Miller. Appellant asserts that the electronic
circuitry of Suganuma already corrects for diffraction effects
so that there would be no need to consider Coale’s teachings
on diffraction. Finally, appellant argues that the
diffraction grating of Coale solves the diffraction problem
differently from the claimed invention and would not work when
applied to the Suganuma beam splitter [brief, pages 16-27].
The examiner responds that even though Suganuma does
not mention diffraction as a problem, the artisan would have
recognized that Suganuma suffers diffraction effects which
must be corrected. The examiner finds, therefore, that the
artisan would be motivated to apply Coale’s graded transition
zones to Suganuma’s mirrors in order to reduce the effects of
diffraction.
Appellant responds again that Suganuma indicates no
problem with diffraction and already corrects for the effects
of diffraction. Appellant also responds that the diffraction
grating of Coale does not produce diffraction like the single
edge of Suganuma and would have no use in Suganuma. Finally,
appellant summarizes why the artisan would not be motivated to
combine the applied references in the manner proposed by the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007