Appeal No. 1997-0502
Application 08/110,064
Each independent claim 1 and 17 on appeal requires in part "a spatial light
modulator" or SLM.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Santilli et al. (Santilli) 3,989,971 Nov. 2, 1976
Dolizy 4,698,496 Oct. 6, 1987
Smits 5,059,854 Oct. 22, 1991
Claims 1, 2, and 4 through 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence
of obviousness, the examiner presents Santilli in view of Smits as to claims 1, 2, 4 through
12, and 16 through 23, with the addition of Dolizy as to claims 13 through 15.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and examiner, reference is made
to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse both stated rejections.
Neither the image intensifier tube of Santilli nor that of Smits comprises the claimed
spatial light modulator. As indicated at column 1, lines 11 through 14 of Santilli, an "image
intensifier [tube] converts an optical input image to an electron image, and back to an
optical image while intensifying the original image." It is not apparent to us that there is
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007