Appeal 2007-0203
Application 10/139,969
With this interpretation in mind, we turn to Presby. Although the
primary mirror is deformed in the disclosed embodiment, Presby expressly
states that “any mirror of the receive telescopes may be similarly deformed
with identical results” (Presby, ¶ 0027; emphasis added). Presby further
indicates that “[d]eforming any mirror in the communications system to
achieve the same result…will be apparent to one skilled in the art.” (Id.;
emphasis added). Thus, according to these teachings, the unlabeled
secondary mirror (i.e., the mirror disposed to the left of beam-splitter 423 in
Fig. 4) could be similarly deformed. In short, Presby suggests that the
secondary mirror is deformable -- and therefore “moveable.”
Furthermore, we find that the skilled artisan confronted with the
problem of removing low-order aberrations would have ample motivation on
this record to substitute a moveable lens as claimed for the movable mirror
in Presby. As the Examiner indicates, Presby expressly states that lenses
may be used as the functional equivalents to mirrors (Presby, ¶ 0028).
Appellants’ suggestion that this stated equivalency of lenses and mirrors in
Presby is limited to fixed elements simply does not comport with the
passage taken as a whole. Significantly, Presby states that “any method of
using adaptive optics at the receive telescope to compensate for distortion to
the wave front is intended to be encompassed by the present invention. For
example, lenses may be used as the functional equivalents to mirrors.”
(Presby, ¶ 0028; emphasis added). When read together, the clear import of
these two sentences is that the use of lenses constitutes an exemplary method
of compensating for wave front distortions in accordance with Presby’s
invention.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013