Ex parte HO et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 1998

08051987 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 1998)

Application for patent filed April 26, 1993. According to appellants, this application is a1
division of Application 07/784,220, filed October 30, 1991, now U.S. Patent No. 5,227,912,
granted July 13, 1993.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte PING-PEI HO
and ROBERT R. ALFANO
_____________
Appeal No. 95-1923
Application 08/051,9871
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before URYNOWICZ, LEE and FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judges.
URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from the final rejection of claim 19, the only claim pending in appellants’
application.
The invention pertains to a multiple-stage optical gate. Claim 19 reads as follows:
Appeal No. 95-1923
Application 08/051,987
2
19. A multiple-stage optical gate adapted for use in gating a pulse of light comprising:
(a) a non-linear medium;
(b) first and second polarizers; and
(c) first and second analyzers, said first and second analyzers being crossed relative to said
first and second polarizers, respectively, and said second polarizer having a polarization axis
parallel to that of said first analyzer, said first and second polarizers and said first and second
analyzers being arranged relative to said non-linear medium so that said first polarizer, said non-
linear medium and said first analyzer form a first optical gate and said second polarizer, said non-
linear medium and said second analyzer form a second optical gate.
The reference relied upon by the examiner is:
Siebert 4,061,985 Dec. 6, 1977
Appealed claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Siebert or,
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Siebert.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellants with regard to the propriety of
these rejections are set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 8) and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 17) and appellants’ brief (Paper No. 16) and reply brief (Paper No. 18).
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants disclose a device comprising two or more optical gates for use in gating a pulse
of light. By successively gating a pulse of light through two or more optical gates, pulses
Appeal No. 95-1923
Application 08/051,987
3
having a shorter duration and/or a higher signal to noise ratio can be obtained than can typically
be obtained using a single stage optical gate. In a two gate embodiment, Kerr gates are
configured by arranging a non-linear Kerr cell, first and second polarizers and first and second
analyzers so that the first polarizer, the Kerr cell and the first analyzer form a first optical Kerr
gate and the second polarizer, the same Kerr cell and the second analyzer form a second optical
Kerr gate, the second polarizer having a polarization axis parallel to that of said first analyzer.
Appellants’ Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate two of appellants’ embodiments.
The Prior Art
In his figure, Siebert discloses a pair of optical Kerr cells OKC-1 and OKC-2 and
associated alternately crossed polarizers P4, P5 and P6 serially disposed at the output of laser 26,
with polarizer P5 disposed between the two Kerr cells.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by both the examiner and the
appellants, we have concluded that the rejection should not be sustained.
We do not agree with the examiner’s position to the effect that the non-linear medium,
referred to four times in claim 19, is not a structure but is only a limitation of a type of material
Appeal No. 95-1923
Application 08/051,987
4
or substance. Even assuming that Siebert’s two Kerr cells, OKC-1 and OKC-2, are made of the
same type of material, the material physically constituting OKC-1 does not physically constitute
OKC-2, and vice-versa. The cells are two separate objects or mediums, even if made of the same
material, such that once the material of OKC-1 is identified as said non-linear medium of the first
optical gate of claim 19, the material of OKC-2 cannot be later identified as said non-linear
medium of the second optical gate of the claim.
Furthermore, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary does not appear to support the
examiner’s position that a medium is a type of material or substance as he contends. The
dictionary, in pertinent part, states that a medium is,
2 : a means of effecting or conveying something: as a (1): a substance regarded as
the means of transmission of a force or effect, . . . e : material or technical means
of artistic expression.
It is assumed that the examiner was referring to these sections of the definition in urging that
medium is only a limitation of a type of material or substance, as only these sections refer to these
two terms. With regard to the prior section “a”, if Siebert’s Kerr cell OKC-1 is the means or
substance regarded as the means of transmission of electromagnetic energy, then OKC-2
Appeal No. 95-1923
Application 08/051,987
5
cannot be regarded as said means or substance. With respect to portion “e” of the definition,
Siebert’s Kerr cells are not a material or technical means of artistic expression.
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-1923
Application 08/051,987
6
IRVING M. KRIEGSMAN
KRIEGSMAN & KRIEGSMAN
883 EDGELL RD.
FRAMINGHAM, MA 01701