Appeal No. 95-4814
Application 07/935,507
cylinder, which we consider would have been obvious in view of
the partially circular cross section in Figure 3 of Martino.
The obviousness rejection of claims 3, 4, 18 and 19 is
reversed because Martino's illumination system 87 is not a
cylinder, which we consider to require a mostly full outer
surface. The obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 21 through
25 is reversed because Martino's aperture is too wide to be
fairly considered a slit. The obviousness rejection of claims
8 through 15 is reversed because Martino does not disclose a
camera means. The obviousness rejection of claims 16 and 17
is reversed because Martino does not disclose lamp means
outside the walls of the illumination system 87.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1
through 5 and 18 through 25 under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 is reversed, and the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed as to claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 20, and is reversed as to
claims 3 through 5, 8 through 19 and 21 through 25.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007