Appeal No. 1997-3969
Application No. 08/175,052
plate for computer generated holograms. The examiner explains
that it would have been obvious to the artisan to use the
subaperture arrangement of Haines on the master grating or
plate of Akkapeddi [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellants argue that Haines does not show or suggest
discrete subapertures forming their own discrete working image
segments because all adjacent segments of Haines would
contribute redundantly to form a surface [brief, pages 8-9].
We find that appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope
with the claimed invention, and we agree with the examiner
that the invention as recited in claim 1 would have been
obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
Akkapeddi and Haines.
In our view, appellants are improperly focusing on the
manner in which the subapertures of Haines are created rather
than on how the subapertures of Haines are used to create
holographic working images on a workpiece. Once the plate 50
in Haines has been created, each subaperture 52 or 54 produces
a working image in response to a coherent light beam. Once
the plate 50 has been created, the working image generated by
each subaperture 52 or 54 is independent of the working image
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007