Appeal No. 95-4470
Application No. 08/223,190
appear in claim 1, this limitation is clearly part of independent
claim 17. However, the examiner still has not satisfactorily
explained why this limitation is taught or suggested by the
combination of applied references. Accordingly, for this reason,
alone, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 17 or of the
claims dependent thereon.2
Again, to whatever extent the examiner appears to rely on
Reeder [page 11 of the answer] for providing for “polarization
rotation,” this reference forms no part of the statement of
rejection and we will not consider it.
We further note that while the examiner appears to rely on
Simmons for the claimed “retroreflection” of the incident light
rays, appellants have submitted a declaration with the reply
brief attesting to running an experiment based on Simmons’
disclosed invention and that the experimental results show that
Simmons’ claim of retroreflectivity is inaccurate because only
part of the beam is reflected. The examiner has never refuted
this evidence.
2We note that Crow, applied with regard to the rejection
of dependent claims 20 and 21, does not provide for the
deficiency of the other applied references as Crow also does not
teach or suggest the claimed “polarization rotation.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007