Appeal No. 2005-2111 7
Application No. 09/827,454
claimed. Therefore, the examiner turned to Vasil’ev for a teaching of a broad area intra-
cavity phase conjugator, referring to Figures 1a and 1b and to page 40, first paragraph in
the left-hand column, and page 42, first complete paragraph in the left-hand column. A
top electrode with an aperture is said to be taught by Vasil’ev at page 42, second
complete paragraph in the right-hand column.
The examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to use the broad area
intra-cavity conjugator taught by Vasil’ev in place of the type of phase conjugator in
Akkapeddi’s system “as a way to provide te phase conjugate light beam already disclosed
but without requiring a separate source of pump light” (answer-page 13). The examiner
also indicates that Vasil’ev’s disclosed advantages of broad area intra-cavity phase
conjugators (increased speed and portability and the ability to be more easily integrated
into existing systems) would have further motivated artisans to make the proposed
modification to Akkapeddi.
At first blush, we would agree that the examiner appears to make a reasonable
case for obviousness in merely substituting one type of phase conjugator for another with
the art indicating advantages to be gained from such a substitution. However, upon
further review of the references and a consideration of appellant’s argument that the
references “teach away” from making the proposed combination, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 18, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007