Appeal No. 96-0346
Application 08/007,511
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 and 2, which constitute all the
claims remaining in the application.
We reproduce below only the last clause of independent claim
1 on appeal:
said first birefringent element of said
second optical isolator having an optic axis
rotated by 90 degrees in a direction of
rotation of said polarization rotators
relative to an optic axis of said third
birefringent element of said first optical
isolator, whereby said ordinary ray of said
third birefringent element of said first
optical isolator is said extraordinary ray of
said first birefringent element of said
second optical isolator, thereby providing an
optical path of the same length for all said
rays between said input beam of said first
optical isolator and said output beam of said
second optical isolator.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Chang 4,974,944 Dec. 4, 1990
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Chang alone.
The examiner takes the view that Chang teaches the claimed
invention except for having a second optical isolator. On the
basis of St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. Inc., 549 F.2d 833, 193
USPQ 8 (7th Cir. 1977), the examiner reasons that it would have
been obvious to duplicate the optical isolator of Chang by
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007