Appeal 2007-2680
Application 10/756,352
(d) providing a second coating over the central and
peripheral portions of the face surface of incidence of the optical
element; and
(e) removing the first and second coatings from the
central portion of the face surface of incidence of the optical element
to form a clear aperture.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Elmore US 4,315,044 Feb. 9, 1982
Daniels US 4,619,504 Oct. 28, 1986
Vacha US 5,714,196 Feb. 3, 1998
Haga US 5,989,628 Nov. 23, 1999
Bauer US 6,097,536 Aug. 1, 2000
Beavers US 6,106,889 Aug. 22, 2000
Masuda US 6,248,819 B1 Jun. 19, 2001
Kato US 2001/0043320 A1 Nov. 22, 2001
Ikeda US 2002/0098257 A1 Jul. 25, 2002
Bell US 6,773,746 B1 Aug. 10, 2004
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1, 7, 12, 13, 17-19, 22, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Kao and
Daniels.
2. Claims 6-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bauer in view of Kato, Daniels and Beavers.
3. Claims 6, 7, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Kato, Daniels and Haga.
4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bauer in view of Kato, Daniels, Haga and Ikeda.
5. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bauer in view of Kato, Daniels, Haga and Vacha.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013