Appeal No. 1998-1472 Page 7
Application No. 08/427,721
to be made incident upon the same area 1 of the optical disk
23. Thus, they are considered to be counter-propagating beams
as claimed.” (Examiner’s Answer at 5.)
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game is
the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the
Protection and Interpretation of Claims--American
Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497,
499, 501 (1990)). Here, claims 1-3 each specify in pertinent
part the following limitations: “creating the holographic
grating at any one of the plural locations within the disk via
a plane-wave light beam in conjunction with a
counterpropagating focused light beam.” Similarly, claims 34,
35, and 178 each specify in pertinent part the following
limitations: “creating a holographic grating at selected ones
of the plural locations within the disk using a plane-wave
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007