Appeal No. 96-1368
Application 08/080,891
(c) Claim 1: Murty in view of De Vaan;7
(d) Claims 2, 3, 5, and 11: Murty in view of De Vaan and
Tatsuno;
(e) Claim 6: Iwanaga in view of Murty, Rogers, and De
Vaan; and
(f) Claims 13, 14, and 16: Iwanaga in view of Murty,
Rogers, De Vaan, and Tatsuno.
1. The rejections based on Rogers
Rogers discloses molecularly highly birefringent polymer
material for making a variety of optical devices, including
the beam splitter shown in Figure 8 and a Wollaston prism
(col. 30, lines 56-57). However, as Appellants note, the
examiner is incorrect to state that Rogers suggests forming
the birefringent polymer material into a wedge-shaped element.
The last Office action (paper No. 9, at 5) and the7
Answer (at 5) incorrectly state that this rejection is based
on Rogers in view of Takayanagi, repeating the stated ground
for the first rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
(Answer at 3; final Office action at 3). However, it is
apparent from the discussion of the references that the second
rejection of claim 1 is based on Murty in view of De Vaan.
This is also apparent from the fact that claims 2, 3, 5, and
11 are rejected as unpatentable over Murty and De Vaan, as
applied to claim 1, further in view of Tatsuno (Final Office
action at 6; Answer at 6).
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007