Appeal No. 95-2333
Application 07/981,919
Dannatt’s preferred embodiment focuses light on an original
document to be copied, column 2, lines 51-55, whereas the
admitted prior art lens array focuses light on a
photosensitive medium, Specification at 1-2. Nonetheless, we
find that Dannatt’s suggestion, of deforming the lens array in
order to modify linearity of a swath of light without
disturbing the focal adjustment, would have been seen by the
skilled artisan as applicable to the lens array in the
admitted prior art.
Therefore, we will affirm the rejection.
The Harrigan and Hegg references, although not
necessary to our decision, provide additional evidence of
obviousness. We adopt the examiner’s treatment of these
references.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 1, 3, and 6-8 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007