Appeal No. 2001-1936
Application 09/049,478
in the context of the object lens 106 and aspherical lens 104
in Figures 2 and 3 of the disclosed invention. Therefore, the
rejection of dependent claim 7 under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
We also reverse the rejection of claims 1-15 as being
obvious within 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ceshkovsky in view of Maeda.
In making no assertion that Maeda teaches the disputed feature of
an RF signal being read from the recording media and outputted by
various means for structural elements (Note the showings in
Figures 1 and 6 of the disclosed invention.), the examiner takes
the position at pages 3 and 4 of the answer that Ceshkovsky
discloses such a feature, making particular mention to this
reference's abstract, its Figure 2 and its corresponding
description. The examiner goes on by stating the "examiner
believes the RF limitation is inherently present in references,
as acknowledged by Appellant's own description of the optical
arts- see pate [sic, page] 7, lines 5-10 of the specification."
Correspondingly, appellants in the brief and reply brief
take issue with the examiner's approach relying upon this portion
of the specification as filed. As noted by appellants, this
portion of the specification makes particular reference to
discussing the disclosed invention in the context of Figure 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007