Appeal No. 1997-0030
Application No. 08/180,767
inadequate for its intended purpose, or that Piper’s system
would benefit from having an output coupling of the type
disclosed in Kung provided at this location. Further, the way
in which Kung’s output coupling device (e.g., selectively
reflective mirror M or piezo-electrically controlled
3
interference filter) functions to vary the light of each
wavelength depends to a large extent on the nature of the
Raman laser cell to which it is coupled. In short, it is not
apparent to us where in the combined teachings of Piper and
Kung one of ordinary skill in the art would have found a
teaching of “controlling populations of multiple lasing energy
level transitions” to thereby control relative intensities, as
called for in the last paragraph of claim 1.
Where prior art references require a selective
combination to render obvious a claimed invention, there must
be some reason for the combination other than hindsight
gleaned from the invention disclosure, Interconnect Planning
Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 551 (Fed.
Cir. 1985). In the fact situation before us, we are unable to
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007