Appeal No. 1998-1925 Page 2
Application No. 08/430,956
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to an optical limiter. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the
appendix to the appellants’ Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Murphy 5,020,884 Jun. 4, 1991
Becker et al. (Becker) 5,382,985 Jan. 17, 1995
Wood et al., Proceedings - The International Society for Optical Engineering, Volume
1307, pages 376-393, April 20, 1990 (Wood)
Justus et al., Applied Physics Letter, Volume 63, No. 11, pages 1483-1485, September,
13, 1993 (Justus)
Swartzlander et al., International Journal of Nonlinear Optical Physics, Volume 2, No. 4,
pages 577-611, 1993 (Swartzlander)
Claims 1-5, 9, 14-20 and 24-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Justus or Swartzlander in view of Murphy and Wood.
Claims 1-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Justus or Swartzlander in view of Murphy, Wood and Becker.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 15) and the Supplemental Answer (Paper No. 17) for the examiner's complete
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007