Appeal No. 97-0544 Page 8
Application No. 08/177,108
holograms (CGHs) in providing diffractive means masking the
exposure ... is clearly taught within Smith ....” (Id. at 6
(emphasis added).) Smith, for its part, teaches that its
phase mask 40 scatters undesired light 41 while transmitting
diffused light 43. Col. 5, ll, 9-12. Rather than producing
converging, coherent light as claimed, the reference’s masks
produce diverging and scattered light.
Neither the addition of Dorfman, Shantz, Caulfield, Daly,
Mori, nor Omar cures the defect of Smith. The examiner has
not identified anything in these references or the prior art
as a whole that teaches or would have suggested a CGH that
produces converging, coherent light and forms an image on a
substrate as recited in independent claim 16 and its dependent
claims 17-30. For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claims 16-22, 24, and 26-29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Smith in view of Dorfman, Shantz,
and Caulfield; the rejection of claims 16, 23, and 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Smith in view of Dorfman, Shantz,
Caulfield, and Daly; and the rejection of claims 16, 23, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007