Appeal No. 1998-1925 Page 8
Application No. 08/430,956
Independent claim 16 also stands rejected on this same basis. It is directed to
protecting a sensitive object from laser beams and all near ultraviolet, visible and near
infrared wavelengths above a first predetermined level of light intensity. It does not include
the limitation that there be a first optical means for focusing an incident light beam on “a”
focal point, but it specifies that there be “a” sample cell containing a solution of absorbing
material dissolved in a solvent, that “said” sample cell be responsive to deflect
substantially all of the focused incident light beam into rings of light and pass only a small
portion, and that it include means for scattering the incident light when it is above a second
predetermined level higher than the first. Here, as with claim 1, we fail to perceive any
suggestion for combining the references in such a manner as to render claim 16 obvious,
other than by means of hindsight. Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection of claim 16 or
dependent claims 17-31.
The examiner also has rejected claims 1 and 16 as being unpatentable over the
four references applied in the first rejection, taken further in view of Becker. This reference
discloses an optical switching device comprising a substrate of light absorbent material
with a plurality of holes therethrough containing a liquid material having an index of
refraction that is temperature dependent. Why the examiner has applied it against these
claims is not apparent to us from the very abbreviated explanation on page 6 of the
Answer. In any event, it is our opinion that Becker fails to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007