Appeal No. 2001-1795
Application 08/825,196
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 1, the
examiner indicates how he finds the invention of claim 1 to be
obvious [answer, pages 4-6]. Specifically, the examiner finds
that Burbo teaches the claimed invention except for the means for
independently and permanently preventing the rotation of each
ocular with respect to the support assembly at respective regions
of rotation once a desired convergence angle has been achieved.
The examiner notes that the intermediate stage of the apparatus
as claimed such as each ocular device being initially rotatable
with respect to the support assembly is not given any patentable
weight. The examiner cites Funathu as teaching a means for
independently and permanently preventing the rotation of each
ocular. The examiner cites Vansaghi as teaching that it was well
known to establish a convergence angle to provide a desired
working distance for the binocular. The examiner finds that it
would have been obvious to the artisan to provide these features
of Funathu and Vansaghi to the ocular support assembly of Burbo.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007