Appeal No. 1999-2342
Application No. 08/855,556
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No.17, mailed Apr. 13, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 16, filed Jan. 25, 1999) and reply brief
(Paper No. 18, filed Jun. 15, 1999) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the
claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appellant argues that Iwasaki does not teach
the use of a “single” optical component being an integral condenser lens and heat
absorbing filter. (See brief at page 4 and reply brief at pages 5-10.) We agree with
appellant. While Iwasaki discloses that the elements of the condenser may also be
made of heat absorbing material, Iwasaki discloses a combination of components
making up the condenser system. (See Iwasaki at column 3, lines 3-9, and 41-46.)
Therefore, Iwasaki does not disclose a “single” component with both characteristics.
Therefore, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007