Appeal No. 2005-2111 13
Application No. 09/827,454
The examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to use the broad area
intra-cavity phase conjugator of Vasil’ev in place of the phase conjugator of Sharp “as a
way to provide the phase conjugate light beam already disclosed but without requiring a
separate source of pump light” (answer-page 22). Moreover, the examiner asserts that
the artisan would have been further motivated to make the combination because of the
advantages disclosed by Visel’ev.
Column 6, lines 30-32, of Sharp indicates that the invention of Sharp “is also not
substantially dependent on environmental conditions.” That is, Sharp, similar to
Akkapeddi, is concerned with a phase conjugation arrangement that corrects for
atmospheric turbulence. Since, for the reasons given supra, Vasil’ev is very specific in
teaching away from using the broad area intra-cavity phase conjugator disclosed therein in
the environment of concern to Sharp, the artisan would have been discouraged, rather
than encouraged, from making the proposed combination.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 34-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Finally, with regard to the rejection of claims 42-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner relies on the combination of Pepper and Visel’ev.
The examiner cites Pepper for substantially disclosing the claimed invention but for
the broad area intra-cavity phase conjugator, relying, again, on Vasil’ev for the teaching of
such a phase conjugator, concluding that it would have been obvious to use the broad
area intra-cavity phase conjugator of Vasil’ev in the Pepper device “as an engineering
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007