Appeal No. 2003-1832 Page 5
Application No. 09/222,230
beamsplitter comprise a film having a plurality of layers including a first layer comprising
a birefringement material, and (2) that there be an analyzer attached to the
beamsplitter. As to the construction o the beamsplitter, the examiner has taken the
position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
teachings of Cobb to modify the Taniguchi display apparatus by replacing the disclosed
beamsplitter with one comprising a plurality of layers including one of birefringement
material because such would be “lighter in weight and more efficient.” With regard to
the analyzer, the examiner opines that adding an auxiliary analyzer to the modified
Taniguchi device “in the light path between the beam splitter and the viewing lens”
would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Handschy. See Answer, pages 3
and 4.
We agree with the appellants that the examiner’s reasoning is defective and the
rejection of claims 1 and 32 should not be sustained.
Even if it were considered, arguendo, that suggestion exists to replace the
beamsplitter disclosed in Taniguchi with the type taught by Cobb, we agree with the
appellants that there is no teaching in Handschy to support the obviousness of making
the further modification of providing an analyzer that is “attached to” the beamsplitter, as
is required by both of these claims. We first note that the examiner’s finding that
Handschy would have suggested locating an analyzer “in the light path between the
beam splitter and the viewing lens,” even if accepted at face value, would not result in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007