Appeal No. 2006-0386
Application 09/460,222
(ii) a converging means for converging said light flux on said
second layer of said one of said N optical discs loaded in said apparatus;
and
(iii) an optical wave front transforming means disposed in an optical
path connecting said light emitting means and said converging means for
correcting an optical wave front of the light flux,
wherein said composite converging optical device (a) performs
aberration correction in correspondence with said first layer of said loaded
one of said N optical discs, and (b) converges said light flux as a smaller
spot diameter D with respect to one of said optical discs having a thinner
one of said substrates onto said second layer of said loaded optical disc,
wherein said composite converging optical device differently
corrects the optical wave front of the light flux in correspondence with said
different thickness of said N optical discs to provide said aberration
correction and said converging of said light flux, and
wherein a thickness of each of said first layers of said N types of
optical discs is about 1.2mm or less.
Appellants read element (iii) of claim 26 and the identical element (iii) of
independent claims 28 and 34 on “optical wave front transforming means 54 (col. 13,
line 35),” Brief at 1-4, which is the wave front correcting lens 54 depicted in Figures 9A
and 9B.
In a non-final Office action dated August 16, 2002, the examiner rejected all of
the reissue claims on the ground of reissue recapture, citing Pannu v. Storz
Instruments, Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester
Industries Inc. v. Stein Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re
Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); and Ball Corp. v. United
States, 729 F.2d 1429, 221 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1984). On November 15, 2002,
appellants filed a notice of appeal, noting the twice-rejected status of the claims. The
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007