Appeal No. 2003-1483
Application No. 09/591,661
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the admitted prior art and Cook and further in
view of Frasher.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 16, mailed
January 14, 2003) for the Examiner’s reasoning and to the appeal
brief (Paper No. 15, filed October 25, 2002) and the reply brief
(Paper No. 18, filed March 14, 2003) for Appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 9-12 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we note that the Examiner relies on the
admitted prior art for teaching the main elements of the claimed
optical system and further on Cook for disclosing the process of
decenter tilt of the tertiary curved mirror (answer, pages 3 &
4). The Examiner further points to Cook’s teaching related to
titling a tertiary mirror and concludes that since the data
resulting from decentering or tilting the tertiary mirror shows
improved image quality (the table in col. 4), one of ordinary
skill in the art would have tilted the mirror in a direction of a
lesser astigmatism to obtain an improved image (answer, page 4).
Appellants argue that Cook generates multiple images by
using multiple tertiary mirrors but does not improve astigmatism
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007