Appeal No. 2003-1832 Page 6
Application No. 09/222,230
the claimed structure, which requires that the analyzer be “attached to” the beamsplitter.
The examiner’s response to this argument (Answer, page 7) differs from the position
stated in the rejection, in that it appears to be that auxiliary polarizers and auxiliary
analyzers, both of which are separately disclosed by Handschy, can be considered to
be equivalents, and therefore Handschy would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art that the polarizing film coating which, “interpreted broadly, is an attachment” to
the Handschy beamsplitter, could be replaced by an auxiliary analyzer, thus meeting
this limitation of the claims. However, we do not agree with the examiner that the
paragraph beginning on line 66 of column 14, which states that installing a polarizing
surface coating on a beamsplitter eliminates the need for an auxiliary polarizer or an
auxiliary analyzer, should be interpreted as establishing the equivalency of these two
elements, and no other evidence has been adduced in support of this contention. It
also should be noted that the only teaching regarding the positioning of an auxiliary
analyzer provided by Handschy is shown in Figure 9, where the analyzer (92) is not
attached to the “beamsplitter” (unnumbered angled component within element 48) as
defined by the appellants’ claims and is not at an angle to the display device (46) that is
substantially not equal to zero.
The mere fact that the prior art structure could be modified does not make such a
modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the desirability of doing so. In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the present
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007