Appeal No. 2005-0616 Page 14
Application No. 09/661,653
wavelength, and (3) a diode pump source in Kocher, as taught by Scheps, since
choosing an optimum pumping device involves routine skill in the art.
The appellant's argument
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 7-13; reply brief, pp. 2-5) that absent the use of
hindsight knowledge derived from the appellant's own disclosure1 there is no reason for
a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified
Kocher so as to arrive at the claimed subject matter. The appellants argue that the
applied prior art does not suggest a laser having a closed loop circulation system for
circulating trivalent titanium ions dissolved in a liquid host through a first lasing chamber
in a first linear direction and through a second lasing chamber in a second linear
direction opposite to the first linear direction.
Our view
After reviewing the teachings of the applied prior art, we fail to find any
motivation, suggestion or teaching therein of the desirability of making the specific
combination that was made by the appellant. That is, there is no rationale in the applied
1 The use of such hindsight knowledge to support an obviousness rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is, of course, impermissible. See, for example, W. L. Gore and
Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007