Appeal No. 96-0346
Application 08/007,511
members and more than four Faraday rotators arranged with at
least one rotator between any two anisotropic crystal members may
be constructed in accordance with the principles of this
invention.” Even if we assume that this teaching would have
indicated to the artisan to have constructed a single optical
isolator employing 6 anisotropic elements, each with a Faraday
rotator therebetween, we would still not end up with the claimed
total number of elements comprising both optical isolators
arranged as recited in independent claim 1 on appeal.
In light of this latter teaching in Chang as well as the
examiner’s reasoning, we find that there would have been no
reason within the examiner’s reasoning or that which would have
been derived from the teachings and suggestions of Chang for the
artisan within 35 U.S.C. § 103 to have forward rotated the
claimed first birefringent element of the second optical isolator
in the manner set forth in the above quoted language at the end
of claim 1 on appeal. The mere duplication in series of Chang’s
Fig. 1A embodiment would not necessarily have led to this
rotation. It appears that by the rotation set forth in the above
quoted language at the end of claim 1 on appeal, a change in
function essentially results in the first and second recited
optical isolator combination as expressed functionally in this
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007