Appeal No. 1997-0897
Application No. 08/227,992 Page 11
findings with respect to claims 5, 15, 22, and 27 for the same
reasons.
The examiner asserts (answer, pages 5 and 14) that with
respect to claims 12 and 23, there is no indication as to how a
focal length is defined from “said frame and said optical means.”
We find that as set forth on page 3 of the specification, the
light receiving element 115 is fixedly mounted within the
exterior of frame 110, and that if the dimensional accuracy of
the frame is very low, the focal length will be greatly varied.
We therefore find that the claim language in question is
supported by appellants' specification, and would be readily
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to
the examiner’s additional argument that “[w]hat part of the
‘transparent covering’ forms the focal length?” We find that as
recited in claim 12 (penultimate line) it is the thickness of the
transparent covering that contributes to the focal length. We
make similar findings with respect to claim 23 for the same
reasons.
From all of the above, the rejection of claims 1-5, 12-15,
20-23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
reversed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007