Appeal No. 1999-0360
Application No. 08/810,591
12, 20, 21, 28 and 29 over Grinberg, Buchan and Azisawa
The only argument presented by appellants with
respect to these rejections, arguably not set forth
earlier in the brief as to other claims, appears at page
25 of the brief. It is argued that claims 34 and 35, the
only independent claims in the above two groups of
claims, are directed to the generation of any phase front
including, but not limited to emulation of geometric
optical shapes such as wedges, lenses, refractive,
diffractive, and combination optical elements.
We will sustain the above rejections. Appellants’
argument is not persuasive because, as noted above,
Grinberg teaches various wedge equivalents (wedges of
different geometric shapes), and these wedge equivalents
represent “any of a plurality of refractive, diffractive,
and composite optical elements” as recited in claim 34
and ”one of a plurality of discrete refractive,
diffractive, or composite optical components” as recited
in claim 35.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007