Appeal No. 96-1368
Application 08/080,891
obviousness over Iwanaga in view of Murty, Rogers, and De Vaan
is therefore affirmed.
In rejecting dependent claims 13, 14, and 16 for
obviousness over Iwanaga in view of Murty, Rogers, De Vaan,
and Tatsuno, the examiner contends, as he did with respect to
claims 2, 3, 5, and 11, that 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. With respect to this
rejection, Appellants rely on the arguments made with respect
to the claims on which they depend (i.e., claims 1-3 and 5,
which arguments we considered unpersuasive for the reasons
given supra. The rejection of claims 13, 14, and 16 for
obviousness over Iwanaga in view of Murty, Rogers, De Vaan,
and Tatsuno is therefore affirmed.
4. Summary
The following § 103 rejections have been reversed:
(a) the rejection of claim 1 based on Rogers in view of
Takayanagi; and
- 16 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007