Appeal No. 96-0948 Page 9
Application No. 08/262,400
the absence of arguments regarding the separate patentability
of dependent claims 14, 15 and 23, they fall with claim 12.
Claims 24 and 25 add to each of claims 1 and 12 the
requirement that the optical means be “affixed to said optical
bench.” The appellants argue that this feature is not present
in Sud, in that prisms 56 and 68, and corner cubes 62 and 66,
are moved in and out of position with respect to the optical
bench. However, we believe this to be too narrow an
interpretation of the term “affixed,” the common definition of
which is “to attach physically . . . in any way.” The claims 3
do not specify that the optical means be immovable - but
merely affixed - and therefore it is our opinion that the
optical means of Sud meets the terms of these claims.
Moreover, we agree with the examiner that once the various
prisms and cubes of Sud are in position to allow the first and
second sensing means to sense the boresight target signal,
they are affixed in that position for so long as that mode is
in operation. Finally, although not explicitly stated, one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that all of the
3See, for example, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1996, page 20.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007