Appeal No. 95-3781
Application 07/978,223
therefore the technical background and field of invention are
different from the appellant's invention. This argument is
not persuasive because the rejection is primarily based on
Figure 1 of Korth which is clearly an ellipsometer (Col. 2,
line 61). The examiner referred to Figure 5A of Korth to show
an alternative way for providing expanded polarized light. In
that regard, Figure 5A of Korth shows that a polarizer could
precede a beam expander. Figure 5A is a part of the
disclosure of Korth and is reasonably pertinent to the
generation of an expanded polarized light beam as claimed.
The examiner had ample basis to look to Figure 5A for its
pertinent teachings.
Turning next to the rejection of claims 10-17 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Korth in view of Cohn,
we find that Cohn discloses an microellipsometer in which a
monochromatic light beam from a laser source 10 travels
successively through a coherence scrambler 12, a collimator
14, a polarizer 16 and a compensator 18 (Figure 1, Col. 6,
line 47). The light beam travels from the compensator 18 and
impinges on and is reflected by a sample 20 (Figure 1). The
reflected light beam passes through iris 22 and imaging lens
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007