Appeal No. 2002-1015
Application 09/129,339
Returning again to appellants' mention at the bottom of page
4 of the Request for Rehearing of appellants' definition of a
wavefront modulator at page 2 of the specification, it goes
without saying that to the extent a wavefront modulator is
defined, it was known in the art. Examples are given there such
as reflecting optical elements and transmitting optical elements.
A discussion in this paragraph at the middle of page 2 of the
specification as filed is detailed in the initial paragraph at
the top of page 9 of the specification as filed. There, it is
also stated (with our emphasis here) that "wavefront modulators
are currently obtainable in different constructions." The
discussion continues by making reference to Figures 5A-5D of
known controllable wavefront modulators. This is essentially the
same discussion of the definition of these devices at page 2 of
the specification as filed. We discussed in the paragraph
bridging pages 7 and 8 of our prior decision the correlation the
examiner has made in the prosecution of this application of the
liquid crystal device in Hakamata to the liquid crystal modulator
of appellants' Figure 5D. The top of page 4 of the Request for
Rehearing even lists other prior art devices that use
controllable wavefront modulators. From all of these
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007