Appeal No. 1998-2473
Application No. 08/556,890
have not made them. Arguments not made are waived. In re Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705, 709,
231USPQ 640, 642-643 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We now turn to the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 6 based on Wilkinson.
Appellants argue that Wilkinson’s detector does not measure the power of the
signal at the dither frequency and does not move the lens to maximize that power. In fact,
argue appellants, Wilkinson does not measure any quantity at the dither frequency.
Appellants contend that the differences between the instant claimed invention and
Wilkinson are more than a matter of design choice. More specifically, appellants point out
that Wilkinson requires the surface whose position relative to the lens is being adjusted to
also be moving in a direction perpendicular to the light beam so as to generate a time-
varying signal whereas the instant invention has no such limitation. Also, according to
appellants, Wilkinson can only provide adjustments perpendicular to the disk surface.
We do not agree with appellants as to their argument pertaining to Wilkinson
providing adjustments only perpendicular to the surface since the instant claims have no
such limitation, requiring movement only “along a first axis.”
As to the arguments regarding Wilkinson’s failure to measure the power of the
signal at the dither frequency and that Wilkinson does not move the lens to maximize
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007