Appeal No. 2001-1739
Application 08/892,903
modified to those skilled in art. Therefore, we find one of
ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate from the
original disclosure that the embodiment depicted in figure 1
could be routinely modified so that the coupling rod 13 could be
selectively rotatable in a perforation or a slot through
rotatable beam 14 by simply providing coupling rod nub 17 and
coupling rod washer 18 on a rotatable beam end of coupling rod 13
in addition to providing nuts and washers on the upright beam end
of coupling rod 13, and inserting coupling rod 13 into rotatable
beam slot 15. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brock in view of
Akademie. Appellant points out that independent claim 23 recites
wherein said optical tube sleeve only partially encircles
the optical tube and includes spaced-apart side edges
defining a generally vertically oriented channel in which
said optical tube sleeve, said radial projection being
dimensioned to slide within said channel along said optical
tube optical axis when aligned therewith, whereby a gross
focus adjustment can be made.
Appellant argues that neither Brock nor Akademie or the
combination teaches or suggests the above limitation. Appellant
argues that the Examiner has failed to show that one of ordinary
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007