Ex Parte Byren et al - Page 5

               Appeal 2007-0203                                                                             
               Application 10/139,969                                                                       
               claimed is simply not equivalent to Presby’s deformable mirror (Reply Br. 7;                 
               Br. 8; emphasis added).                                                                      
                      Specifically, Appellants note that Presby corrects distortion at discrete             
               locations within the beam (i.e., high-order aberrations) by deforming a                      
               primary mirror at corresponding discrete locations.  Appellants emphasize,                   
               however, that the claimed invention cannot correct such high-order                           
               aberrations since moving a lens can only provide a smooth, continuous                        
               correction over the entire aperture of the telescope.  According to                          
               Appellants, there is no motivation to modify Presby to use a movable lens                    
               since such a modification would render Presby incapable of performing its                    
               intended purpose (i.e., correcting high-order aberrations) (Br. 8-9; Reply Br.               
               7-8).  The Examiner argues that the proposed modification of Presby is                       
               proper since Presby’s system is equally applicable for correcting low-order                  
               aberrations (Answer 12).                                                                     
                      We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 22-24.                 
               At the outset, we note that claims 22 and 24 broadly recite, in pertinent part,              
               that the secondary lens is “movable in multiple axes.”  Similarly, claim 23                  
               broadly recites that the primary lens is “movable in multiple axes.”                         
               Significantly, the scope and breadth of the term “movable” does not                          
               preclude an element that is deformable.  That is, the limitation would be                    
               fully met by a deformable lens -- “movable” optical elements that are well                   
               known in the art.3                                                                           

               3 See, e.g., U.S. Pat. 6,246,528 to Schachar (disclosing deformable lenses                   
               whose optical power is varied by small changes in equatorial diameter).                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013