Appeal No. 2002-1015
Application 09/129,339
light wave. What is in fact recited to be the function
attributed to the controllable wavefront modulator of claim 25 is
merely a broad recitation of "to control the shape of the
wavefront of a beam in the illumination beam path." It is this
actual broad recitation that we and the examiner have emphasized
in our respective views is actually met by the teachings of
Hakamata.
Appellants' arguments of the general description of the
invention beginning at page 5 of the Request for Rehearing is
similarly misplaced. There is no recitation in claim 25 of
displacing the focus in object space in a z axial direction.
Clearly, this a feature of the disclosed but unclaimed invention.
Similarly, the assertion at the top of page 6 that the Board's
reasoning ignores much of what is disclosed above in context
buttresses our earlier point that appellants are arguing in
effect their disclosed rather than the actual claimed invention
in claim 25 on appeal.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007