Appeal No. 2002-1255 Page 5
Application No. 09/271,440
Horie discloses a reflection-type azimuth rotator 35. The examiner believes that
the claimed steerable mirror assembly reads on Horie's reflection-type azimuth rotator
35. We do not agree since Horie does not disclose or suggest that the reflection-type
azimuth rotator 35 illustrated in Figures 7 and 8 provides any sort of steering. In that
regard, the reflection-type azimuth rotator 35 of Horie is not disclosed as being movable
independently with respect to the linearly movable portion 30. The disclosure in column
8, lines 47-54 of Horie merely points out that the reflection-type azimuth rotator
35 "serves as a tracking control mirror" which in our view only implies that it directs the
beam of light from optical fiber 26 towards the focusing lens 29. Accordingly, we
conclude that the examiner's determination that the mirror (i.e., the reflection-type
azimuth rotator) 35 shown in Figures 7 and 8 of Horie provides fine tracking control (i.e.,
is steerable) is not supported by the evidence of record in this appeal (i.e., the applied
prior art of Horie and Makigaki).
The appellants also argue (supplemental brief, p. 40) that Horie does not
disclose electrodes to steer the mirror as recited in the dependent claims 103 and 1103
and therefore the examiner's proposed modification to Horie based on the teachings of
Makigaki would not arrive at the claimed invention. We agree. The examiner's position
(answer, pp. 4 and 5) that electrodes to move the mirror must be used (i.e.,are
3 Claims 120 and 126 also recite this feature.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007