Appeal No. 95-2600
Application 07/990,458
For the reasons discussed above, we find claim 1 to be
anticipated by Suwa. Claims 3 and 14 are not argued in the main
brief. The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 14 is sustained.
The assembly of attachments 22A and 22B, distance adjusting
racks 22C and 22D, and space adjusting dial 23 onto the frame 20
forms a "unit" as recited in claim 4. Appellant argues that
"Suwa . . . has the attachments 22A and 22B separately mounted to
the frame 20 and thus does not anticipate claim 4" (Brief,
page 13). Since Suwa's attachments 22A and 22B are mounted to
frame 20 in the same way as appellant's optical blocks 2 and 3,
appellant's argument is not understood. Appellant argues that
"Suwa does not teach the subject matter of claim 4 since Suwa
provides no indication that the racks 22C and 22D and the gear
23A are mounted as a unit" (Brief, page 13). It is not clear
from this bare statement why appellant does not consider the
assembly to be a unit. In the Reply Brief, appellant argues that
the pieces must be mounted on the support frame as a unit (Reply
Brief, page 13). Since the optical blocks and distance adjusting
means (including the distance adjusting dial 23) do not become a
unit until assembled to the frame 41, as shown in appellant's
figure 4, we fail to see any difference between appellant's
assembly and Suwa's. The rejection of claim 4 is sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 103
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007