Appeal No. 1997-1766
Application No. 08/245,033
the inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg., 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d
at 1239, citing W. L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ
at 311, 312-313. In addition, our reviewing court requires
the Patent and Trademark Office to make specific findings on a
suggestion to combine prior art references. In re Dembiczak,
175 F.3d 994, 1000-01,
50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617-19 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Upon our review of Appellant's specification, we find
that on page 6 of the specification, Appellant discloses that
it is often the case with telephoto zoom lenses that the first
lens unit is comprised of the largest lens unit and is
actually moved toward the object side during focusing.
Therefore, displacing the first lens unit in a direction
orthogonal to the optical axis thereof to thereby provide a
correcting optical system for vibration reduction results in
the bulkiness of the holding mechanism and a driving
mechanism, and that this is not preferable. Appellant
discloses on page 7 of the specification that if a lens unit
like the third lens unit or the fifth lens unit which is
greatly moved along the optical axis during focal-length
change is used as a correcting optical system for vibration
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007