Appeal No. 2005-0891 Page 8
Application No. 09/916,566
nothing in the specification which is inconsistent with the definition of “modulate”
proffered by the examiner or implies a more limited usage of this terminology. In fact,
the use of “modulated” on page 7 (cited above) implies that a broader interpretation,
simply “to vary,” is consistent with the underlying disclosure.
In light of the above, we conclude that “the variation of a property of an
electromagnetic wave or signal, such as its amplitude, frequency, or phase” is the
broadest reasonable meaning of the term “modulating” consistent with the appellants’
underlying disclosure. The control of the laser output power through the use of a
continuously variable beam attenuator, as disclosed by Jeantette (column 10, lines 19-
25) meets this definition of “modulating” and thus satisfies the limitation “modulating the
laser to control the power of the beam” in claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find the appellants’ arguments as to the
patentability of claim 1 over Jeantette in view of Kar to be persuasive. We therefore
sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 3 and 4 which the appellants have not
separately argued apart from claim 1.
We shall not, however, sustain the rejections of claims 5-8 as being unpatentable
over Jeantette in view of Kar. In rejecting these claims, the examiner states simply that
“[m]ethod claims 5-8 recite steps corresponding to elements recited in system claims 1,
3 and 4, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale” (answer, page 5). The
appellants have, in essence, argued that the examiner has not identified where in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007