Appeal No. 2003-1486
Application No. 09/152,016
will not sustain the rejection of claim 4 and its dependents,
claims 5 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Additionally, as independent claims 9 and 16 include the same
language as claim 4, we will not sustain the rejection under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 of claims 9, 16, and their
dependents, claims 10, 11, 13 through 15, 17, and 18.
Regarding the anticipation rejection of claims 4, 6 through
9, 11, 13, 14, and 16 over Frontino, appellants argue that
Frontino in Figure 1 includes a mirror 26 with a concave face,
which Frontino discloses (column 4, lines 50-52) "focuses and
reflects this reflected light to an optical signal receiving
means 34." Frontino also references scanning mirror 26 in the
discussions of Figures 3 through 7. Therefore, we agree with
appellants that Frontino, at least in the embodiments of Figures
3 through 7, focuses the light reflected from the object, and
thereby fails to satisfy the claim limitation of "without
focusing the directed reflected light," which appears in each of
independent claims 4, 9, and 16. In the discussion of Figures 8
and 9, Frontino uses a reflecting polygon 26, instead of mirror
26, and lacks any disclosure as to whether the polygon focuses.
Frontino is thus ambiguous as to whether the embodiments of
Figures 8 and 9 focus the reflected light, as required by the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007