Appeal No. 2002-1015
Application 09/129,339
understanding it was derived from so-called adaptive optics.
Appellants' various references in the Request for Rehearing to
arguments made about this topic at the oral hearing are
misplaced. There is no adaptive optics per se recited in claim
25 on appeal. We made reference at page 9 of our earlier
decision regarding appellants' arguments made in the principal
brief on appeal as well as the reply brief regarding the
theoretical bases of the disclosed invention. There we
concluded as we do now that the theoretical bases of the
disclosed invention was well understood by us, but the nature and
breadth of scope of the subject matter in independent claim 25 on
appeal led us and continue to lead us to conclude that the claim
is anticipated by the teachings and suggestions in Hakamata as
argued by the examiner and embellished upon by us in our prior
decision.
A major focus of our analysis in our prior decision was that
to the extent recited in claim 25, the subject matter of Hakamata
meets claim 25. Appellants have not persuaded us what features
actually recited in claim 25 were not met by Hakamata.
Appellants do not appear to us to appreciate the broad scope of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007