Appeal No. 1999-0236
Application 08/624,173
The only relevant language in the rejection about
focusing is the following (EA5-6): "In col. 12, line 5 of
Sherman when the light of Sherman at low intensity, low duty
cycle has been properly focused on the symbol bearing surface
by the operator observing the held scanner 10 illumination (as
clearly shown in fig. 1 of Sherman) the high duty cycle
modulator of Sherman (appellant[']s second means) increases
the amount of light or the 'intensity' outputted form [sic,
from] the Sherman illuminator."
We agree with Appellant that there is no express or
implied teaching or suggestion of any focusing in Sherman.
The scanning wand in Sherman is always in focus when the
window is in contact with the surface. The Examiner's
reasoning is erroneous. Sherman uses the same amplitude and
on-time pulse width signal in both the normal operational and
the standby (low power) modes (col. 4, approx. lines 22-28);
only the duty cycle (the ratio of the on time to the total
time) is changed. Thus, Sherman employs light of the same
"intensity," i.e., amplitude, but a different duration. This
does not meet the claim requirement for two different
intensity levels.
- 13 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007