Appeal 2007-0203
Application 10/139,969
claimed is simply not equivalent to Presby’s deformable mirror (Reply Br. 7;
Br. 8; emphasis added).
Specifically, Appellants note that Presby corrects distortion at discrete
locations within the beam (i.e., high-order aberrations) by deforming a
primary mirror at corresponding discrete locations. Appellants emphasize,
however, that the claimed invention cannot correct such high-order
aberrations since moving a lens can only provide a smooth, continuous
correction over the entire aperture of the telescope. According to
Appellants, there is no motivation to modify Presby to use a movable lens
since such a modification would render Presby incapable of performing its
intended purpose (i.e., correcting high-order aberrations) (Br. 8-9; Reply Br.
7-8). The Examiner argues that the proposed modification of Presby is
proper since Presby’s system is equally applicable for correcting low-order
aberrations (Answer 12).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 22-24.
At the outset, we note that claims 22 and 24 broadly recite, in pertinent part,
that the secondary lens is “movable in multiple axes.” Similarly, claim 23
broadly recites that the primary lens is “movable in multiple axes.”
Significantly, the scope and breadth of the term “movable” does not
preclude an element that is deformable. That is, the limitation would be
fully met by a deformable lens -- “movable” optical elements that are well
known in the art.3
3 See, e.g., U.S. Pat. 6,246,528 to Schachar (disclosing deformable lenses
whose optical power is varied by small changes in equatorial diameter).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013