Appeal 2007-1064
Application 10/059,242
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is made to the
Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellant and the
Examiner.
We reverse.
ISSUE
To show that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) (2004), Appellant’s arguments focus on the claimed
limitation related to a reference beam having “a substantially uniform
intensity profile on a region of the holographic recording medium” (Br. 4).
The issue turns on whether the combination of Chern with Cowan teaches or
suggests the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the issue is:
whether the prior art teachings disclose or suggest the claimed
subject matter including an apodizer that can produce a
substantially uniform profile on a region of the recording
medium.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant’s claim 1 requires an apodizer that produces a modulated
reference beam from the impinging reference beam. The produced beam is
further required to have a substantially uniform intensity profile on a region
of the holographic recording medium, be off-axis from normal at a point in
the region of the medium, and be converging or diverging at a point in the
region. This arrangement is described as the solution to the problem of
unequal distribution of the illuminated spot on the recording medium when
the reference beam is of a convergent and/or divergent nature (Specification
6, ¶ 0015).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013