Appeal No. 1998-1441
Application No. 08/294,779
The examiner also applies Winsor to show suggestion of “mov[ing] the Tsukada
stationary mirror as opposed to moving the Samuelson et al. LCLV.” (See Answer, page
8.) However, since we do not consider Winsor to be necessary in the rejection of
independent claim 55, it is cumulative to art already applied. The first and second
deflector means of claim 55 are suggested by Tsukada as shown in Figure 1 of the
reference. The claim is not specific as to which of the deflectors may or may not be
stationary.
Further, viewing the relevant recitations under the precepts of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph, the functions recited with respect to the “first” and the “second” deflector means
do not require that the corresponding structure in the specification include any structures
for moving the second deflector means. Our interpretation of claim 55 is buttressed by a
reading of the dependent claims. Claim 28, for example, is more specific in requiring that
the “second deflector means” includes a movable mirror.
In any event, study of the Winsor disclosure results in our conclusion that the
reference does not support the fact for which it stands in the rejection. Winsor is relied
upon as showing equivalence in the art of (1) moving a recording medium while holding a
scanning mirror stationary, and (2) moving a mirror while holding the recording medium
stationary. (See Answer, page 20.) The Winsor reference, however, is not consistent with
the proposition.
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007