Appeal No. 1997-3528
Application No. 08/230,659
increase in the current when the sample was irradiated with
100 mW of monochromatic 753 nm light with a spot size of 3 mm.
Bjorklund, however, does not teach the suitable time
periods for irradiation. As pointed out by the appellants
(reply brief filed February 12, 1996, page 2), Bjorklund does
not teach or suggest irradiating the article to an intensity
of at least 0.05 W/cm to obtain an absorbed energy/unit2
4 3
volume of at least 1 x 10 J/cm to activate the article
without forming an index grating. Indeed, Bjorklund states
that the article is irradiated for the purpose of
demonstrating the photoconductivity, not for the purpose of
activating the article. Here, the examiner has not pointed to
any evidence showing that suitable irradiation times, for the
purpose of measuring photoconductivity, are the same as or
overlap the irradiation times needed for activation to meet
the radiation intensity and absorbed energy/volume limitations
recited in appealed claim 11.
For these reasons, we hold that the collective teachings
of Ducharme and Bjorklund do not establish a prima facie case
of obviousness against the subject matter of appealed
independent claim 11 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007