Appeal 2007-0203
Application 10/139,969
Moreover, given the myriad of options for the respective optical
elements taught by Presby, nothing in the reference precludes the skilled
artisan from utilizing deformable lenses in lieu of the deformable mirrors as
we noted previously.4 In our view, such a system would retain the ability to
correct both high- and low-order aberrations. Appellants’ argument that
using movable lenses would render Presby unsuitable for its intended
purpose is simply not supported by any evidence on this record and, in any
event, runs counter to the teachings of Presby.
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 22-24. Since Appellants have indicated that claims 25-
40 stand or fall with independent claim 24 (Reply Br. 5), the Examiner’s
rejections of dependent claims 25-40 is likewise sustained. See In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejections with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 22-40 is
affirmed.
4 See P. 5, supra, of this opinion.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013