Appeal No. 1999-0360
Application No. 08/810,591
rejections are set forth in the final rejections (Paper
Nos. 7 and 19), and the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 24)
and the appellants’ brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 23
and 25).
Appellants’ Invention
The invention is as summarized at pages 7 and 8 of
the brief.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 33, 2, 3 and 9
The answer indicates that the basis for this
rejection
1 At page 4, line 4, of the examiner’s answer, “20” (first occurrence)
should read “10”.
is set forth in the prior Office action identified as
Paper No. 7 at pages 3 and 4.
After consideration of the positions and arguments
presented by both the examiner and the appellants, we
have concluded that this rejection should be sustained.
We agree in general with the comments made by the
examiner; we add the following discussion for emphasis.
Appellants’ only arguments with respect to this
rejection are that Grinberg does not teach (1) the use of
other than coherent light, (2) n-dimensional beam
deflection, (3) a phase substantially greater than 2p,
and (4) capabilities of optical mapping of a “range of
refractive, diffractive, or composite optical elements.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007