Appeal No. 2000-1959
Application No. 09/032,928
examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to selectively obliterate the spacers 30 and 32 between the
coded data elements and this would not affect the particular code. (See answer at
pages 4-5.) We disagree with the examiner. From our review of Horst, Horst clearly
teaches, at column 9, lines 21-26, that "[a]lso, the particular photodetector like 118,
120 which senses the space gratings 30 (FIG. 3) must be energized between
successive data diffraction gratings like 26, 28 as this provides a separation between
the characters being read." From our reading of this teaching, Horst implies that all the
spacer gratings are required between the codes/characters being read.
Appellant argues that there is nothing in either reference that teaches obliterating
existing diffraction gratings. (See brief at pages 4-5.) We agree with appellant.
Appellant describes Horst as teaching that the "S" or spacer diffraction grating forms
an "optical clock." (See brief at page 4.) The examiner maintains that no mention or
reference to an "optical clock" can be found in the teachings of Horst and the
obliteration of some of the "S" grating would not destroy any feature of the "S" grating
as a clock since the obliterated grating would still be positioned at the same locations
and thus could still fulfill the same purpose of timing. (See answer at pages 6-7.) We
do not agree with the examiner's conclusory finding. The examiner has not considered
that the void could not be detected in the same manner as the diffraction grating as
disclosed by Horst. If the void could still be detected by Horst then why include this
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007