Appeal No. 95-3781
Application 07/978,223
It would have been obvious to
those of ordinary skill at the time
the invention was made to place the
polarizer before rather than after the
beam expander because this is a simple
variation of the system of Korth which
would obviously maintain the signifi-
cant features of the device, namely
the creation of an expanded polarized
light beam to be directed onto the
sample. That those of ordinary skill
[k]new that polarized beams could be
expanded is illustrated in figure 5 of
Korth, in which a polarized beam,
polarized by polarized 51, is expanded
by lens systems (500, 503) to create
expanded polarized light beam with
diameters larger than the size of the
polarizer. [Examiner's Answer at page
5]
We agree with the reasoning of the examiner and thus we will
sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Korth.
This decision is based solely on the arguments
raised by the appellants. We offer no opinion on arguments
which could have been raised but which were not set forth in
the appeal brief.
The appellant's argument regarding this rejection is
directed to Figure 5A of Korth. Appellant argues that Figure
5A is directed to a holographic interferometer and that
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007