Appeal No. 1997-1522
Application 08/296,779
broad discussion of reflectance values obtainable in optical interference films which
employ varying number of high and low refractive index coatings. As can be seen from
our view, King and Optics are directed to differing structures and functions. Where King
creates an interference effect between a semireflective layer and a single thin dielectric
layer, Optics creates an interference effect in optical instruments between multiple
dielectric layers.
In the situation before us, the examiner has improperly pointed to isolated teachings
in each of the applied references. The examiner’s approach falls short of establishing the
requisite evidence to establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to combine the applied references to arrive at the claimed invention. Grain
Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907,
5 USPQ2d 1788, 1792 (Fed. Cir. 1988). It is not appropriate to use appellant’s disclosure
as a blueprint to reconstruct the claimed invention out of isolated teachings in the prior art.
Id. UniRoyal, Inc. v Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051,
5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
With respect to the claims requiring a multilayer interference film coating over
substantially the entire substrate, the examiner has held that King has made an obvious
design choice. However, King's structure achieves a different purpose than that of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007