Appeal No. 1998-1472 Page 28
Application No. 08/427,721
Nonobviousness of Claims 164 and 165
The appellants argue, “the combined teaching of Bjorklund
and Takeda also lack any teaching or suggestion of the
multiplexing of holographic gratings using differing points of
focus.” (Appeal Br. at 12.) The examiner replies, “the focus
spot of reference beam #2 can be repositioned to create
holographic gratings at a plurality of locations along the
optical axis of the object beam #1, i.e., at different depths
within the disk medium.” (Final Rejection at 3.)
Claim 164 specifies in pertinent part the following
imitations: “the material comprising the optical disk is
further capable of having multiple holographic gratings at
each one of the plural locations within the disk, each
holographic grating within each one of the plural locations
being created with at a
different point of focus.” Similarly, claim 165 specifies in
pertinent part the following limitations:
the material comprising the optical disk is further
capable of having holographic gratings at plural sets
of the plural locations within the disk, the
holographic gratings within a particular set of the
plural locations being created at a same point of
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007