Appeal No. 95-4470
Application No. 08/223,190
Sumida, cited as prior art in the background section of the
instant specification, does not disclose a “monolithic optical
element,” as claimed. Although the examiner relies on the
abstract of Sumida, wherein “a single solid-state optical
element” and “[t]he optical element is a monolithic ...
multifunctional element” are recited, it is clear from his patent
specification that Sumida provides only for a “quasi-monolithic
saturable optical element” [see, for example, column 1, lines 8-9
and column 2, lines 11-12 of Sumida]. Moreover, Sumida is very
explicit, at column 3, lines 62-65:
The term “quasi-monolithic” is used since the optical
element 10 of the present invention is not a single
piece, or truly monolithic.
Thus, it is clear that Sumida merely represents the prior art
over which appellants seek improvement in providing for a single,
monolithic optical element.
Appellants also argue, and we agree, that none of the cited
references disclose or suggest the claimed “polarization
rotation” which is so important to the claimed invention.
The examiner’s response is to contend that this argument
goes to limitations not appearing in claim 1 and, therefore, the
examiner “gives no patentable weight to the ‘polarization
rotation’ feature” [answer-page 10]. If the limitation, indeed,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007