Appeal No. 1998-1472 Page 11
Application No. 08/427,721
The appellants argue, “the combined teachings of
Bjorklund and Takeda lack the plane-wave light beam and
counterpropagating focused light beam elements claimed ....”
(Appeal Br. at 11.) The examiner replies, “As previously
argued above, Takeda does in fact disclose a plane-wave
reference beam 25'. Further, Bjorklund, like the arguments
presented for Takeda, does in fact teach a counter-propagating
focused beam #1.” (Examiner’s Answer at 6.)
Like claims 1-3, claims 4, 5, 96-99, 101, and 174 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,
like claims 34, 35, and 178, claims 106-110, 114-116, and 175-
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 light beam in
conjunction with a counterpropagating focused light beam.”
Accordingly, claims 1-5, 34, 35, 96-99, 101, 106-110, 114-116,
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007