Appeal No. 1999-2342
Application No. 08/855,556
teaches the combination of the condenser lens with the heat absorbing filter. Appellant
argues that Merko is not analogous art for the combination and further does not teach
the use thereof spaced from a support. (See brief at page 6.) While we agree with the
examiner that Merko suggests this combination of the two elements, we find no
convincing line of reasoning to combine the projection system of Dey with the generic
light modifier of Merko. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 22-25, 36
and 37 over Dey and Merko.
With respect to independent claim 26, appellant presents the same basic
arguments found persuasive above. Therefore, we find these arguments persuasive
also with respect to independent claim 26 and its dependent claim 38.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 is reversed, and decision of the examiner to reject claims 23-26 and 36-38 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007