Appeal No. 1998-1441
Application No. 08/294,779
claim goes on to recite that the “modulation” of the electric field is “relative to [the]
predetermined electric field threshold of [the] electrooptic medium.” The “modulation” of
the electric field thus merely refers to the recognition that the field is to be applied in view
of the known electric field threshold of the electrooptic medium. Our interpretation of the
requirement is consonant with that of the examiner’s, in view of the paragraph bridging
pages 6 and 7 of the Answer. Appellants, on page 19 of the Brief, note the examiner’s
interpretation of the “modulation,” but do not offer any interpretation to the contrary.
Claim 55 recites that the modulated light beam is incident on the light valve means
“synchronous” with the “modulation” of the electric field. (Note instant Figure 6.) However,
the requirement would have been obvious because there would have been little reason for
concern whether a beam is incident when the light valve is polarized for erasing. The
beam would need to be applied, however, when the light valve is polarized for writing --
“synchronous” with the “modulation” of the electric field.
The examiner turns to Tsukada, as set forth in the paragraph bridging pages 7 and
8 of the Answer, for the “first and second deflector means” included in the “image inputting
means” of claim 55. Tsukada discloses a means for inputting an image comprising (Fig.
1) a rotating polygonal mirror 3 which sweeps a light beam in an “x” direction on mirror 5.
The beam is swept in the “x” direction on recording medium 6 by reflection of mirror 5. The
recording medium is displaced in the “y” direction to effect two-dimensional scanning.
See Tsukada, column 3, lines 1-34.
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007