Appeal No. 1999-0360
Application No. 08/810,591
We agree with the examiner’s responses to these
arguments at page 5 of his answer, and adopt them as our
own. Further, with respect to item (4), above,
appellants acknowledge at page 13 of the brief that
Grinberg’s apparatus discloses the equivalent to an
optical wedge with a variable wedge angle. These
equivalents of variable wedge angle taught by Grinberg
comprise a “range of refractive, diffractive, or
composite optical elements.” These equivalents exist in
Grinberg because the effective liquid crystal
birefringence for the liquid crystal elements 10 of the
beam deflection array 2 is a function of the voltage
applied across the liquid crystal, and various values or
degrees of birefringence will emulate wedges of different
geometries.
The Rejection of Claims 37-39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as Unpatentable over Grinberg
Appellants set forth only two arguments with respect
to the rejection of claims 37-39 as unpatentable over
Grinberg.
The first argument is that Grinberg is specifically
designed for use with highly coherent incident light
beams and the device is incapable of proper operation
with incoherent, partially-coherent or polychromatic
light. The other argument is that the device disclosed
in Grinberg is only capable of deflecting a beam in a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007