Appeal No. 1998-1925 Page 4
Application No. 08/430,956
various fashions. See specification, pages 19-22, and Figures 1, 2A-C, and 5. As
manifested in independent claim 1, the invention is described as functioning to protect a
light-sensitive object from damage due to an incident light beam above a first
predetermined value of light intensity. The claim describes the structure as comprising
“first optical means for focusing an incident light beam to a focal point,” “a protective
element disposed near the focal point said protective element being responsive to a
focused incident light beam,” and a “second optical means for focusing substantially all of
the light passing through said protective element and said second optical means onto the
light-sensitive object.” The protective element has three possible responses to the
focused incident light beam:
(1) If the beam is below a first predetermined intensity level, the protective
element allows it to pass through.
(2) If the beam is between the first predetermined level and a higher second
predetermined level, the protective element deflects by way of thermal
defocusing substantially all of the focused incident light into rings of light and
passes through only a small portion.
(3) If the beam is above the second predetermined intensity level the
protective element scatters that incident light in all directions to decrease the
intensity level below the damage threshold of the light sensitive object.
In the first rejection of claim 1, the examiner takes the position that Justus and
Schwartzlander both disclose protective elements in which optical defocusing is utilized to
reduce the intensity of a beam of focused incident light that is above a predetermined level
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007