Appeal No. 1997-2990
Application 08/260,318
examiner [reply brief].
After a careful consideration of this record, we agree
with appellant that there is no motivation to modify the
applied prior art in the manner proposed by the examiner. The
examiner’s finding that the artisan would find diffraction
problems in Suganuma where none are disclosed is speculative
at best and is not supported by the evidence. More
importantly, the examiner’s finding that the diffraction
grating of Coale would be an effective solution to the
diffraction “problem” of Suganuma is also pure speculation and
is also not supported by the evidence. We agree with
appellant that the electronic compensation provided in
Suganuma could correct for any diffraction effects in Suganuma
and, therefore, there would be no motivation to consider the
teachings of Coale. Therefore, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007