Appeal No. 1998-1472 Page 27
Application No. 08/427,721
Because Murakami teaches cutting data pits rather than
creating holographic gratings, we are not persuaded that
teachings from the prior art would appear to have suggested
the claimed limitations of “each holographic grating has a
variable diffraction efficiency and wherein the detecting
means is capable of producing a signal proportional to the
diffraction efficiency of a holographic grating whenever
detected, said signal being indicative of a value of the
stored data element represented by the detected holographic
grating” or “each holographic grating has a variable
diffraction efficiency and wherein: the reading step comprises
the step of producing a signal proportional to the diffraction
efficiency of a holographic grating whenever detected, said
signal being indicative of a value of the stored data element
represented by the detected holographic grating.”
The examiner impermissibly relies on the appellants’ teachings
or suggestions. He fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims
144 and 153 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bjorklund
in view of Takeda further in view of Murakami. Next, and
last, we address the nonobviousness of claims 164 and 165.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007