Appeal No. 2006-0741
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,185
Raymond and Moharam, as presented by the examiner, we do not see how one with
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that something useful or beneficial would result
by applying source illumination with a range of wavelengths in Raymond and measuring
the resulting diffraction as a function of wavelength. That rationale has not been
adequately established by the examiner.
We do not disagree that for determining the selectivity of diffracted radiation to
the wavelength of the incident light, Moharam discloses applying, with a fixed incident
angle, source illumination including a range of wavelengths and thereafter measuring
the resulting diffraction as a function of wavelength. However, that disclosure is a long
way from being a reasonable teaching, suggestion, or motivation for applying in
Raymond a source illumination which includes a range of wavelengths and measuring in
Raymond the resulting diffraction as a function of wavelength. Raymond’s system and
method depend on a varying incident angle and a fixed wavelength for its source
illumination.
Claim 27 further requires the step of selecting a polarization state of the reflected
radiation. Claim 28 further recites a polarizer for selecting a single polarization state of
diffracted light. The examiner attempted to meet these requirements by relying on
Raymond’s disclosure that TE polarized laser is used as the source illumination and on
Moharam’s disclosure that changes in diffraction efficiency based on incident angle and
wavelength of the source illumination are more acute for incident light with TE
polarization than incident light with TM polarization (Answer at 10-11). The comparison
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007