Appeal No. 1997-0897
Application No. 08/227,992 Page 5
to the examiner, “[t]hus this embodiment . . . lacks utility, ie,
it cannot provide a focused image to the sensor.”
From our review of the record before us, we find that if the
dimensional accuracy of the frame 110 is very low, the focal
length will be varied, leading to the light being out of focus
(specification, page 3). The specification additionally
discloses that an object of the invention is to provide an image
sensor which can have its focus easily adjusted even if the
dimensional accuracy of the frame is low (page 4). From the
disclosure of appellants, we find that adjustment of the
transparent cover 111 will result in the image sensor being
brought into focus, and will not make the image out of focus as
asserted by the examiner. Accordingly, the rejection of claims
1, 2, 13, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1-5, 12-15, 20-23,
and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the basis that the invention
now claimed lacks utility. The examiner’s position (answer,
pages 3 and 4) is that in response to an objection to the
specification that the specification fails to teach how a focal
length may be adjusted, appellants replaced “adjusting” a focal
length to “changing” a focal length. The examiner argues to the
effect that the purpose of the invention is to “adjust” the focal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007