Appeal No. 1997-0689
Application No. 08/047,238
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill to substitute the diffraction grating patterns
of Gerritsen, et al ('925) for the polarizing
patterns of Zhang, et al in the interest of not only
controlling the amount of light entering the room,
but rather, [the] range of entrance angles, the
range of exit angles, and the particular spectrum
manipulated, as taught by Gerritsen, et al ('925).
It is unclear to us how one would substitute Gerritsen II's
diffraction gratings for the polarizers of Zhang such that
moving one diffraction grating relative to the other would
vary the amount of light transmitted (the purpose of Zhang)
and still maintain a constant direction of transmitted light
(the purpose of Gerritsen II). "[A] proposed modification
[is] inappropriate for an obviousness inquiry when the
modification render[s] the prior art reference inoperable for
its intended purpose. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1265-1266 n. 12, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 n. 12 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
The examiner contends (Answer, pages 13-14) that
"mobility of the respective planes in and out of optical
series . . . is fairly suggested by Zhang, et al, who, in the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007