Claims 5 and 10 lastly stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over the Schawlow patent or the Schawlow article in view of either Smith or Martin taken with Jenkins. The examiner states that the "use of the Smith ... or Martin type of Brewster angle polarization discriminator to replace the Schawlow ... references' interference type of discriminator is [sic: would have been] obvious as such amounts to the substitution of one known polarization means for another." This rejection must fall also. The Schawlow references give no suggestion whatsoever that one would want to or could break up the resonator-polarization element to utilize only the polarization portion. The existence of apparatus containing Brewster angle plates, whether alone or in stacks, as shown in Smith, Martin, and Jenkins simply cannot provide the necessary suggestion to the artisan to modify so drastically the arrangement depicted in Schawlow.
What Is Brewster\\u2019s Angle
2ff7e9595c
Comments