Appeal No. 1999-1656
Application No. 08/638,759
the disclosed member (30 or 33 in the instant figures) is not in a position to affect “the
slope angle of the marginal ray exiting the lens.” Rather, the member is in a position to
affect light rays incident upon an imaging element (e.g., instant Fig. 2).
Appellant’s disclosure (e.g., page 10, first full paragraph) indicates that the
“numerical aperture limiting member” is to be defined in somewhat broad terms. The
specification, at the bottom of page 8 through page 11, provides guidance with respect to
the scope of the claims. The paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10 defines the numerical
aperture limiting member in structural and functional terms: “the diffraction light flux of the
unrequired order incident on the NA [numerical aperture] limiting member 30 [Fig. 1] is
absorbed substantially by the light shielding layer 31, so that only a part of the diffraction
light flux of the unrequired order can be passed through the light shielding layer 31.”
In view of the record before us, we conclude that the broadest reasonable definition
of “numerical aperture limiting member” does not exclude the light-intercepting kerfs (Fig.
24) or light-intercepting masks (Fig. 26) as disclosed by Nose. Appellant further argues
(Reply Brief at 9-10) that the light-intercepting masks are not “arranged in series with the at
least one diffraction optical element,” as required by instant claim 2.
Claim 2 sets forth “at least one” diffraction optical element. Zone plate 103 (Fig. 26
of Nose) is a monolithic structure (see, e.g. col. 6, ll. 4-44) and could be considered a
single diffraction optical element. Alternatively, the zone plates 103 , 103 , 103 could be1 2 2
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007