Appeal No. 2003-1483
Application No. 09/591,661
We note that, similar to claim 1, independent claims 4 and 9
also recite tilting or decentering the center of curvature of the
tertiary mirror in a direction of lesser astigmatism. Based on
our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has failed to set
forth a prima facie case of obviousness and accordingly, the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 4 and 9, as well
as claims 2, 3, 5, 1-12 and 14 dependent thereon, over the
admitted prior art and Cook cannot be sustained.
With respect to the rejection of claims 6 and 7, the
Examiner further relies on Abel (answer, page 5) in addition to
the references discussed above, for teaching the details of an
aberration plate. With respect to claim 8, the Examiner
additionally relies on Frasher for teaching a single-body mirror
and diaphragm structure (answer, pages 5 & 6). However, none of
these references overcomes the deficiencies of the combination of
the admitted prior art and Cook discussed above as they also fail
to teach the claimed tilting or decentering the center of
curvature of the tertiary mirror in a direction of lesser
astigmatism. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims
6 and 7 over the admitted prior art and Cook in view of Abel and
of claim 8 over the admitted prior art and Cook in view of
Frasher cannot be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007