Appeal No. 95-3335
Application 08/083,231
such that one with ordinary skill in the art would not see fit to
provide the second electrode.
Finally, the appellant argues that there is nothing in the
IBM Disclosure which suggests a solution to the problem addressed
by the appellant or the benefits of producing circularly
polarized light without additional optical elements. However, in
an obviousness determination, the prior art need not suggest
solving the same problem set forth by appellant. In re Dillon,
919 F.2d 688, 692-93, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (in
banc) (overruling in part In re Wright, 848 F.2d 1216, 1220, 6
USPQ2d 1959, 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904
(1991). Moreover, the device of the IBM Disclosure does produce
circularly polarized light without using a quarter wave plate
like that shown in prior art Figure 1 of the appellant’s
specification. The appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Additionally, note also that the advantages and/or problems with
which the appellant is concerned are not recited in the claims.
In our view, the appellant has not sufficiently rebutted the
examiner’s reasons for providing a second electrode on the
semiconductor substrate.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection
of claims 1-6 and 25-26.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007