Appeal No. 1997-0502
Application 08/110,064
any structure in either Santilli or Smits which provides any light modulation in accordance
with the requirements of a spatial light modulator.
Moreover, we agree with the arguments presented by appellants in the Brief and the
Reply Brief that neither Santilli nor Smits separately or in combination teaches such a
spatial light modulator. We understand SLMs to function in the manner argued by
appellants in the Brief and Reply Brief. Additionally, the Reply Brief presents evidence that
spatial light modulators have a known special meaning in the field of electro-optics. SLMs
are a term of art. We note that appellants' disclosed invention as well the prior art
mentioned in the early pages of appellants' specification as filed in part gives examples of
spatial light modulators comprising liquid crystals as the basic light modulating element.
This is consistent with the basic SLM structures presented at the bottom of page 478 of
the Horner book attached to the Reply Brief.
Thus, the initial rejection of independent claims 1 and 17 and their respectively
noted dependent claims must be reversed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007