Appeal 2006-2416
Application 09/988,660
Appellants’ statement at the middle of page 2 of the Reply Brief, and
repeated numerous times subsequently, is incorrect that the claimed
holographic optical element is recited to color correct two color band energy
ranges. As indicated earlier in this opinion, this is not what is recited in
claim 4 on appeal. The subsequent arguments in the Reply Brief as to
Ben-Menachem and Amos have essentially been dealt with before by us as
to the arguments presented in the Brief and the Examiner’s responsive
arguments with which we fully agree. Essentially, Appellants are again
arguing Amos and Ben-Menachem separately.
Lastly, we will not consider the argument of teaching away in topic B
beginning at page 8 of the Reply Brief. Again, this kind of line of reasoning
was not set forth initially in the principal Brief on appeal and the Examiner’s
responsive arguments do not give rise to this new line of reasoning in the
Reply Brief. It goes without saying anyway that the artisan’s consideration
of the teaching value of Amos and Ben-Menachem actually is evidence of
the state of the art as to the known properties of holographic optical
elements.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013