Appeal No. 1998-0181
Application NO. 08/566,222
reflectivity than electrode 28 is positioned between the pieces.
Upon energization of the SEL’s four electrodes, a four-beam far-field
pattern is produced (column 6, lines 49-51).
Opinion
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by
both the examiner and the appellants, we have concluded that the
rejection should be sustained. We agree in general with the comments
made by the examiner; we add the following discussion for emphasis.
With respect to claim 4, appellants’ argument is that the
rejection is improper because Kapon does not teach induction of
filaments. We disagree. As noted above, at column 6, lines 49-51
Kapon teaches that rectangular arrays of the embodiment of Figure 1
produce a four-beam far-field pattern. This establishes that the
four electrodes 28 of Figure 1 produce filamentation adjacent to the
imperfections separating the electrodes.
Claim 5 merely recites that the step of providing plural
localized regions includes a step of forming localized regions of
different refractive index in said mirror means. This subject matter
is met by Kapon’s disclosure at column 4, lines 44-58, that
electrodes 28 are gold (Au), and that material 30 at the
imperfections between electrodes 28 is Ti/Au or Cr/Au, each of which
inherently has a different refractive index than Au. Diffraction
occurs when a wave of energy passes obliquely from one medium to a
medium of another kind.
Arguments made by appellants with respect to dependent claim 5
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007