Appeal No. 1999-1656
Application No. 08/638,759
considered as three diffraction optical elements. In either case, the claim 2 “at least one
diffraction optical element” reads on the one or the plurality of optical elements.
The claim 2 “numerical aperture limiting member” sets forth nothing different from
the Figure 26 structure comprised of substrate 104, 107, the four light-intercepting masks
106, and the four light-intercepting masks 109. We find the diffraction light selection
element to be arranged in series with respect to the light passing through zone plate 103
(or through zone plates 103 , 103 , 103 ) toward sensors 112. We also note the similarity1 2 2
with respect to, for example, appellant’s louver 30 (Figure 2) arranged in series with the
single diffraction lens 72 and imaging element 60.
Finally, we observe that although appellant argues about limiting numerical aperture
of a lens, instant claim 2 recites that the numerical aperture limiting member is for “limiting
numerical aperture of the optical system for the second diffraction light” (emphasis added).
The apparatus disclosed by Nose is designed to block light of orders other than the
desired first order from the image sensing elements. Thus, even if one were to use a
definition for “numerical aperture limiting member” narrower than that indicated by the
instant disclosure, blocking the “second diffraction light” in the Nose apparatus would limit
the “numerical aperture of the optical system” by virtue of absorption of the second
diffraction light within the system.
We thus are unpersuaded that the examiner’s finding of anticipation is erroneous
with respect to instant claim 2. Nor do we see any basis for appellant’s view that the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007