Appeal 2007-1064
Application 10/059,242
ANALYSIS
Appellant correctly points out that the apodizer in Cowan produces a
flat intensity profile only when the beam leaves the apodizer (Br. 4). We
also agree with Appellant that the apodizer of Cowan does not produce a
substantially uniform intensity profile at a point in the holographic storage
medium (Br. id.). While the beam leaving the apodizer may have uniform
intensity, it has no effect on the intensity profile of the beam on a region of
the holographic recording medium. In that regard, Appellant correctly
recognizes (Oral Hearing) the absence of any correspondence between the
uniform beam intensity provided by apodizer of Cowan and the geometry of
its imaging system.
Therefore, we disagree with the Examiner (Answer 8) that a uniform
intensity profile at a point in a region of the recording medium, which is
missing from Chern, may be discerned from Cowan. In fact, based on the
teachings of Chern and Cowan outlined supra, we find ourselves persuaded
by Appellant’s argument that there is nothing in Cowan to indicate that the
uniform intensity beam that leaves the apodizer will have a flat intensity
profile at the storage medium for a converging or diverging beam. Both
independent claims 1 and 13 require that modulated reference beam
produced by the apodizer have uniform intensity profile on a region of the
recording medium for an off-axis beam which is also converging or
diverging.
With respect to the rejection of claims 9-12 and 17, we note that the
Examiner further relies on Dhar and Hoffnagle or Kathman for the
additional features recited in the these dependent claims. However, the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013