Appeal No. 1998-0818
Application No. 08/319,143
1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing In re LeGrice 301 F.2d 292, 293,
133 USPQ 365,372 (CCPA 1962)).
Appellants argue on page 5 of the Brief that the encoded
filter used in paragraph, (b) of claim 13 in combination with
the amplitude encoded filter of paragraph, (c) of claim 13 is
not suggested by the references. Further, Appellants argue
that Chen teaches away from using "an inexpensive SLM
incapable of exact phase compensation," stating that Chen
"seeks to approach exact phase compensation employing
iteration." On pages 1 and 2 of the Brief, Appellants assert
that the claim 13 limitation of a "non-continuous phase
encoded filter" precludes Chen’s filter which is iteratively
adjusted.
On page 4 of the Answer, the Examiner asserts that Chen
teaches an image recovery apparatus which uses a phase encoded
filter and an amplitude encoded filter. On page 6 of the
Answer, the Examiner asserts that Chen teaches "the phase
encoded filter of claim 13 with the specificity recited in
paragraph (b)."
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007