Appeal No. 1999-2342
Application No. 08/855,556
22. A projection apparatus comprising:
1) a light source;
2) a support for supporting an object to be projected;
3) a single optical component spaced from and situated
on one side of said support, said optical component being
an integral condenser lens element and heat absorbing filter;
and
4) a projection lens situated on the other side of said
support.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Dey 4,118,761 Oct. 03, 1978
Iwasaki 5,046,838 Sep. 10, 1991
Merko 5,353,211 Oct. 04, 1994
Swanson, “Binary Optics Technology: The Theory and Design of Multi-
Level Diffractive Optical Elements,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lincoln Laboratory, Technical Report 854, pp. 1-47, Aug. 14, 1989.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Iwasaki. Claims 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Iwasaki in view of Swanson. Claims 23-26 and 36-38 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dey in view of Merko.1 In the answer, the
examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
1 We note that the examiner has not rejected independent claim 22 under the combination of Dey
and Merko, but we assume that this is merely an oversight because the limitations of claim 22 must be
met to reach the dependent claims 23-25, 36 and 37.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007