Appeal No. 96-3896
Application No. 08/152,315
DeLange could no longer function to reflect all but one
frequency at each filter as intended. Thus, with the Bragg
grating filter of Glomb substituted in DeLange, DeLange could
not function in the manner disclosed.
As to the rejection of claim 6 over Hepner and
Glomb, it is considered that the substitution of the Bragg
grating filter for the filter in Hepner would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made. Hepner=s filter 12, Figure 4, operates to
pass a wavelength and reflect a second, different wavelength.
The Bragg grating of Glomb is disclosed at column 5, lines 17-
38, and at Figure 2, and it is apparent that it reflects a
wavelength within stopband 22 and passes any wavelength
outside of the stopband. Thus, the fact that the grating
would have served as a full substitute for Hepner=s filter is
apparent. Section 103 requires us to presume that the artisan
has full knowledge of the prior art in his field of endeavor
and the ability to select and utilize knowledge from analogous
arts. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007