Appeal No. 1998-1472 Page 9
Application No. 08/427,721
Although Takeda teaches forming a hologram 1 using an
object beam 25 and a reference beam 25', col. 6, ll. 15-19,
the beams do not travel in opposite directions. To the
contrary, the object beam 25 and the reference beam 25' travel
in similar directions. Specifically, figure 6 of the
reference shows that both beams travel from the same beam
splitter 24, col. 6., l. 67, - col. 6, l. 1, to the same side
of disk 2. Col. 6, ll. 15-19.
Because Takeda shows beams traveling in similar
directions, we are not persuaded that the reference discloses
the claimed limitations of “creating the holographic grating
at any one of the plural locations within the disk via a
plane-wave light beam in conjunction with a counterpropagating
focused light beam” or “creating a holographic grating at
selected ones of the plural
locations within the disk using a plane-wave light beam in
conjunction with a counterpropagating focused light beam.”
The absence of this disclosure negates anticipation.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-3, 34, 35, and
178 under
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007