Appeal No. 2004-0039
Application No. 09/740,324
rejection, we refer to the brief and to the answer respectively for
a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons well stated in the answer, we will sustain
this rejection. We add the following comments for emphasis.
Mears discloses an optical method (and apparatus) that
includes processing light with a fixed diffraction grating or
hologram in combination with a dynamic (i.e., variable or
programmable) diffraction grating or hologram (e.g., see lines
45-64 in column 1) which corresponds to all aspects of appealed
independent claim 37 except for the here claimed feature wherein
the grating elements are electro-mechanically moveable. In the
method (and apparatus) of Mears, the dynamic diffraction element
is preferably implemented as an electronically controlled image
displayed on a pixellated spatial light modulator (e.g., see the
paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2, lines 19-25 in column 2 and
lines 38-61 in column 3). However, we fully share the Examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious for an artisan with
ordinary skill to replace patentee’s dynamic holographic
diffraction element with Ricco’s electrically-programmable
diffraction grating having grating elements which are electro-
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007