Appeal No. 1999-2342
Application No. 08/855,556
35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to claims 23-25, the examiner relies upon the teachings of
Swanson merely to teach the use of a crenulate surface with optical power. (See
answer at page 6.) Appellant argues that Swanson does not teach the limitation of a
single optical component on one side of a support and the optical component being an
integral condenser lens and heat absorbing filter. (See brief at page 4. ) We agree with
appellant. The examiner has not identified why one skilled in the art would have been
motivated to use a single component in the manner claimed, as discussed above. The
examiner maintains that if Iwasaki does not teach or suggest the use of a single optical
element, then Swanson is believed to fairly suggest integration of plural lens into a
single lens element. (See answer at pages 9 and 10.) We disagree with the
examiner’s conclusion. The examiner has provided no convincing line of reasoning for
this conclusion in either the statement of the rejection at page 6 of the answer or in
response to appellant’s arguments at pages 9-10 of the answer. The examiner merely
relies on sections of Swanson identified by the examiner as pertaining to the correction
of aberrations. (See answer at page 6 and §§ 5.2 and 5.3 of Swanson.) Appellant
argues that there is no motivation to correct aberrations in the system of Iwasaki since
there is no image. (See brief at page 5.) We agree with appellant.
With respect to the combination of Dey and Merko, appellant argues that Dey
does not disclose a condenser lens element which is spaced from the support. (See
brief at page 5.) We agree with appellant. The examiner maintains that Merko
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007