Appeal No. 97-0673
Application 08/143,370
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 2 and 3, and the claims which depend
directly or indirectly from claims 2 and 3, i.e., claims 5-10,
20-25, 17-19 and 33-38. Stockham was relied on by the examiner
to show collimating the optical beam and Kolomiets was relied
on by the examiner to show a mirror positioned on the side of
the fluid chamber opposite the light source. Neither Stockham
nor Kolomiets makes up for the above-noted deficiencies of
Kamiwano and Longobardi.
Claim 11 requires a "means for optical phase conjugation
of said collimated beam on the side of said fluid chamber
opposite to that which said light enters said chamber." The
examiner has interpreted that as requiring some component
which "precisely changes the direction of propagation of the
incident beam in such a way that the return beam retraces the
same path as the incident beam" (answer at page 9, lines 4-
12), an interpretation not disputed by the appellants. The
examiner then regards lens 5 and mirror 6 in Kolomiets as an
optical phase conjugator because, according to the examiner,
they appear to reflect light such that it retraces the exact
path of the incident beam (answer at page 9, lines 10-12).
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007