Appeal No. 95-3854
Application 07/976,162
onto a three-dimensional receiving member is not novel,
per se, whether dealing with printed circuits or
something else. So one skilled in the art would
reasonably have been expected to look to the prior art
for an appropriate solution. And, as pointed out
above, such a solution was a telecentric lens.
Therefore, the use of an afocal lens for focusing
the image of a three-dimensional master onto a three-
dimensional receiving surface as recited in the claims
would have been suggested by known practices as pointed
out above.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 8) that "none of the
references cited by the Examiner teach or suggest the
desirability of combining these references to achieve Appellants'
claimed imaging system and method of projecting a focused image
onto an exposure surface of a three-dimensional image surface
using an afocal lens system."
The examiner has made a showing that three-dimensional image
projection systems, and telecentric lenses in image projection
systems are both well known in the art, but appellants correctly
argue that the examiner has failed to set forth a credible reason
as to why the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use
the telecentric lenses of either Bennett, Endo or Wakimoto in the
three-dimensional image projection systems disclosed by Malsky
and Petit. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the
skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use the
telecentric lenses as taught by Bennett, Endo or Wakimoto in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007