Appeal No. 2006-2572
Application No. 10/437,569
the examiner has set forth a proposed motivation to extend the optical path of the optical
system without significantly enlarging the device dimensions as taught by Graber and to
provide optical features as appropriate depending on the desired optical path length and
device dimensions (Answer 4). We agree with the Examiner’s statement of motivation of the
combination of the teachings, and we find no specific field of endeavor or intended use
which limits the environment of the claimed invention. Therefore, we find that the Examiner
has not been unreasonable in the claim interpretation or in the statement of the reasons for
the combination of teachings.
From our review of the teachings of Feng, we find that Feng is concerned with the
adaptation of the smaller bar code reading system to use conventional/commercially
available components (Feng at col. 1). Similarly, Graber is concerned with limiting the size
of the physical device. We find the Examiner’s rationale for the combined teachings with
respect to “An assembly for an image capture device” as recited in the instant claim language
to be reasonable. Therefore, we do not find Appellants’ argument to the combination to be
persuasive.
Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that the Examiner has failed to provide any
indication of the structure in Feng that would result from the proposed modification of Feng
(Reply at 4). We disagree with Appellants, and we find that the Examiner correlated the
spacer in the statement of the rejection to element 420 which is the integrated lens and
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007