Appeal No. 2003-1551
Application No. 09/550,713
that Mitsutake teaches the improvement portion of claim 1.
We note that at the oral hearing for this appeal,
appellant’s representative argued that the device in Figure 5 of
Mitsutake cannot be integrally formed and that the use of the
term integrally formed in Mitsutake was an error. We advised
appellant’s representative that on the written record before us
we would assume that the literal teachings of Mitsutake are
accurate. The question of whether Mitsutake fails to teach or
suggest what it literally discloses is a question of fact which
appellant is free to argue before the examiner. We are not
prepared to accept the bare assertions of appellant’s
representative that Mitsutake does not teach or suggest what it
specifically discloses.
With respect to method claims 7 and 9, the PBS 26 of
Mitsutake separates a first light beam into S and P polarized
light waves Ls and Lp. The quarter-wave plate 27 and reflection
plate 28 create a half-wavelength delay as claimed. Prism 29
changes the direction of the p polarized light wave as claimed.
The admitted prior art teaches condensing the S and P polarized
light waves as claimed. The improvement portion of claims 7 and
9 recites steps that would be performed if the device shown in
Mitsutake’s Figure 5 was integrally formed as suggested by
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007