Appeal No. 2006-0741
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,185
is inappropriate and inadequately explained because the polarization referred to in
Raymond and in Moharam is with regard to the incident illumination. The examiner has
not shown that either reference teaches selecting a polarization state of the reflected
radiation as is recited in claim 27 or a polarizer for selecting a single polarization state of
diffracted light as is recited in claim 28.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1-4, 8-13, 16, 17, 20, and
27-28 over Raymond and Moharam cannot be sustained. We have no need to consider
objective evidence of nonobviousness submitted by the appellant with regard to alleged
commercial success.
B. The rejection of claims 5-7, 14, 18-19, and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Raymond, Moharam, Case, Lochbihler I, and Lochbihler II
As applied by the examiner, the deficiencies of Raymond and Moharam is not
made up by the disclosure of Case, Lochbihler I, and Lochbihler II. Accordingly, the
rejection of dependent claims 5-7, 14, 18-19, and 21-26 also cannot be sustained.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1-4, 8-13, 16, 17, 20, and 27-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Raymond and Moharam is reversed.
The rejection of claims 5-7, 14, 18-19, and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Raymond, Moharam, Case, Lochbihler I and Lochbihler II is
reversed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007