Ex Parte MIYAGAWA et al - Page 9




               Appeal No. 2006-0386                                                                                              
               Application 09/460,222                                                                                            

                              optical head moving means which is arranged below the optical                                      
                      disc and moves the optical head in the radial direction of the optical disc;                               
                              disc discriminating means for discriminating the thickness of the                                  
                      disc substrate of the loaded optical disc and for generating the                                           
                      discrimination signal according to the result of the discrimination; and                                   
                              control means for generating the control signal to said holding                                    
                      means in accordance with the discrimination signal and for moving the                                      
                      aberration correcting means onto said optical path in which the occurrence                                 
                      of the aberration due to the disc substrate is smallest onto said optical                                  
                      path,                                                                                                      
                              and wherein the optical head records, reproduces, or erases the                                    
                      information signal onto/from the optical disc by the light flux which has                                  
                      transmitted the selected aberration correcting means.                                                      
                      For reasons which will become apparent, it is not necessary to decide whether                              
               appellants are correct to argue that claim 6 is too indefinite to be read on any                                  
               embodiment.  However, we note that appellants have not explained whether this                                     
               argument is based solely on the examiner’s  § 112, ¶ 2 criticism of claim 6 (discussed                            
               infra) or whether it is based on other reasons which have not been identified.                                    
               E.  The rejections in the ‘629 application                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
                      Claims 1-30 were rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 for the                            
               following reasons:                                                                                                
                              Claim 1 recites “N converging means whose . . . thickness[es];”.                                   
                      However, it is not clearly recited according to what structural element or                                 
                      means the aberrations had been corrected.                                                                  
                              Claim[s] 2 & 4-9 [recite] “disc discriminating means”.  Is the above                               
                      means the same as the one in claim 1 and if not what is the difference?                                    
                              Claim 4 recites “control means for selecting the light emitting                                    
                      means”.  It is not clear whether the selection means selects one of the                                    
                      objective lenses or one of the light beams?                                                                
                              Claim 6 & 7 also recites “-- in accordance with a control signal”.                                 
                      However, the claim fails to recite the source of a control signal.                                         


                                                               9                                                                 





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007