Appeal No. 1998-2009
Application No. 08/508,250
to surface number 2, not lens number 2. If surface numbers
were synonymous with lens numbers, there is no explanation for
surface numbers 1 and 4 through 6 because there are no
disclosed lenses 1 and 4 through 6. Thus, surface number 2 is
not len number 2. Additionally, the distance numbers do not
add up. The total distance between the image and the object
(U=30.00) does not equal the sum of the relevant distances
f +f +d=42.76 (not 30.00). Accordingly, even if Kobayashi were
C O
shown to use a collimator as lens 3, or an equivalent thereof,
the claimed distance between the pair of lenses has not been
shown.
Appellants further argue:
Thus, one would not be motivated to use the more
expensive lens system of the Kobayashi et al. patent
as a replacement for a single lens of the Tatsuno et
al. patent without a suggestion in the prior art of
a problem or its solution, or that this more
expensive lens system would provide an improvement
outweighing the increased cost. [Brief-page 8.]
We agree with the Examiner's response. The motivation to
combine references need not be the same as Appellants’. Also,
we note, Kobayashi does cite cost considerations as being
outweighed by other factors (column 3, lines 44-48). That
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007