Appeal No. 97-0673
Application 08/143,370
The appellants argue that the position of the examiner is mere
"wishful reading" and that there is nothing in Kolomiets to
support the examiner’s position.
The examiner’s view with respect to Kolomiets’ lens 5 and
mirror 6 is misplaced. They evidently do not provide a return
beam which precisely retraces the path of the incident beam.
In Kolomiets, it is stated on page 2, lines 18-22, that the
reflected beam is shifted in the direction of the particle’s
movement by a certain magnitude. On page 4, lines 1-2,
Kolomiets further states that the incident beam a and the
return beam b are spread by a magnitude equal to 2F. We agree
with the appellants that the examiner has not a sufficient
basis to shift the burden of proof to the appellants with
regard to whether the lens 5 and mirror 6 together constitute
an optical phase conjugator.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11, and claims which
depend either directly or indirectly from claim 11, i.e.,
claims 14-16 and 26-32, will not be sustained.
Conclusion
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007