Appeal No. 2002-1015
Application 09/129,339
claim 25, since it reads upon the prior art to Hakamata, even if
the disclosed but unclaimed features may represent improvements
over the prior art, especially those in adaptive optics.
At page 4 of our prior decision, we took great effort to
explain to the reader the nature of the various amendments made
by appellants to the Background of the Invention, the objects and
Summary of the Invention and the new Abstract provided in the
amendment of September 28, 1998. It was explained that the type
of "control" set forth in those portions of the specification for
the control of a wave front modulator is in fact to displace and
shape the focus of the light beam in object space. There is no
such recitation in claim 25 on appeal. Even though such a
recitation is not present in claim 25 on appeal, to us at the
time the original decision was rendered, we attempted to make
clear to appellants that we understood the nature of the control
as disclosed, but not claimed. Moreover, we made it clear that
no modulation per se was claimed.
Even if we consider the nature of the definition of
wavefront modulator presented at page 4 of the reply brief as
reproduced from specification page 2, we remain similarly
unpersuaded. There is no recitation in claim 25 that a wavefront
modulator deliberately influences the phase and/or amplitude of a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007