Appeal No. 96-1368
Application 08/080,891
In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981)). As Appellants have failed to explain why
the artisan would not have been motivated to combine the
reference teachings in the manner proposed by the examiner, we
are affirming the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable for
obviousness over Murty in view of De Vaan.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, and 11
over Murty in view of De Vaan and Tatsuno, the examiner,
noting that Tatsuno discloses a three-wedge Wollaston beam
splitter (Fig. 4) that can deflect an incident beam under
larger angles than a two-component Wollaston prism (col. 6,
lines 47-58), contends it would have been obvious to employ
the device of Murty as modified in view of De Vaan as the
wedge-shaped elements in Tatsuno's three-wedge Wollaston prism
in order to produce a beam splitter that permits the incident
beams to have large angles. We also note, as mentioned
previously, that Murty (at 113, 2d col.) explains his wedge-
shaped liquid crystal cell is equivalent to a Wollaston prism.
Appellants respond to this rejection with the argument
discussed above in connection with claim 1, i.e., that Murty's
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007