Appeal No. 97-3467
Application 08/279,748
and the bisector by definition would coincide with each other.
But that is not the angle o defined in the appellant’s claim,
which is measured with respect to a different bisector.
Because the examiner failed to establish that Morimoto’s
device satisfies the requirement of limiting distortion to that
represented by the upper left corner region shown in appellant’s
Figure 26, there is no basis for the examiner to conclude that
Morimoto inherently satisfies the various equations set forth in
claim 1 between the many pertinent parameters in the system.
Takemoto has not been relied on for any teaching in connection
with this aspect of the appellant’s claimed invention.
In the final Office action (Paper No. 11), the examiner
stated: "It is well known in the art of optical systems that the
closer the light is to the optical axis, the less distortion and
aberration is induced by the optical components." But that
general recognition is far from adequate to constitute a
reasonable suggestion for the specific formulas recited in claim
1 or for
particular identification of the upper left corner region in
appellant’s Figure 26 involving both angles " and o. The
examiner has not presented any evidence that the basic level of
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007