Ex parte SUMIDA et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 95-4470                                                          
          Application No. 08/223,190                                                  


          1.414 and wherein the body is formed in the shape of a porro                
          prism to provide for retroreflection in one plane and                       
          polarization rotation of incident light rays.  Such a                       
          construction is said to provide for 100% reflectivity of incident           
          light rays and for a geometric rotation of the plane of                     
          polarization of light rays which is independent of whether the              
          reflections are totally internally reflecting or not.                       
               Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:           

               1.   A monolithic optical element comprising:                          
               a body comprising a material having a refractive index                 
          greater than 1.414 to provide for total internal reflection of              
          incident light, and wherein the body is formed in the shape of a            
          right-angle porro prism to provide for retroreflection in one               
          plane and polarization rotation of the incident light rays.                 


               The examiner relies on the following references:                       
          Crow                     3,924,201                Dec.  2, 1975             
          Simmons                  4,525,034                Jun. 25, 1985             
          Reeder                   4,740,986                Apr. 26, 1988             
          Sumida                   5,303,256                Apr. 12, 1994             
                                                  (filed Mar. 12, 1993)               

               In addition, the examiner relies on appellants’ admitted               
          prior art Figure 4 [APA].                                                   
               Claims 1 through 3 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103           
          as unpatentable over Sumida, Simmons and Crow.  In a new ground             

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007