Appeal No. 95-1401
Application 07/885,364
same as the admitted prior art of appellant's figures 1 and 2 and
(Examiner's Answer, page 5): "Kohmoto recognizes the problem
dealt with by applicant and notes that the solution is to provide
an increased number of cam grooves and pins. Note column 1,
lines 6-10, 30-38, and 47-51." The examiner finds (Examiner's
Answer, page 6): "Ohnuki clearly teaches the provision of
additional guide slots and pins offset from the first guide slot
and pin in an axial direction in order to prevent undesired lens
play. Note column 2, lines 37-54 and column 3, lines 3-20 and
60-66." The examiner concludes that "one skilled in the art
would have found a clear suggestion in Ohnuki to provide
duplicate cam slots and pins spaced axially from each other in
order to prevent undesired tilting of the lens" (Examiner's
Answer, page 6). The examiner cites Hummel and Bornhorst as
"evidence to suggest that those skilled in the art would have
been motivated from known practices to provide axially spaced
guides to prevent lens play" (Examiner's Answer, page 6). The
rejection of claim 21 is based on the same reasons (Examiner's
Answer, page 8). With respect to independent claim 12, the
examiner finds the limitations to be essentially shown in Ohnuki
(Examiner's Answer, pages 7-8).
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the admitted prior art taken with Ohnuki,
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007