Appeal No. 1998-2463 Page 11
Application No. 08/598,854
case of obviousness with respect to claim 1. The rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is therefore reversed. As claims 2-5 depend from claim
1, the rejection of claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
Turning next to claim 11, we find that claim 11 recites
“varying the wavelength of the laser beam such that the spot
follows the selected area as the facet rotates.” However,
unlike claim 1, claim 11 does not recite that the electric
signal to the laser is varied. Claim 11 recites that the
wavelength of the laser beam is varied. We find that Andrews
teaches (col. 8, lines 49-52) that “[s]uch liquid crystal
cells are often used to alter polarization of a light passing
therethrough so as to
provide . . . a wavelength tuner” (underlining added). In
view of the teachings of Andrews, we find that it would have
been
manifestly obvious to a skilled artisan to have used the
liquid crystal cell of optical element 50 of Andrews as a
wavelength tuner. However, as acknowledged by the examiner
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007