Appeal No. 96-0948 Page 13
Application No. 08/262,400
and 40, located inside the boresighting device 10, which pass
or reflect beams from several sources in order to combine them
into a single beam. Not only are these mirrors not adjacent
to the laser source, but they do not reflect the laser signal.
The third disclosed by Sud is mirror 54, which is located
outside of the boresighting device. Even if considered to be
“adjacent” to the laser source, mirror 54 acts upon the laser
return signal, and not the laser “designation signal,” which
the appellant has defined in the specification as the laser
signal that is projected out to the target (pages 5-6). We
therefore cannot agree with the examiner that the subject
matter of this claim is rendered obvious by the teachings of
Sud, and we will not sustain the rejection of this claim.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10-12, 14, 15 and 22-
25 as being anticipated by Sud is sustained.
The rejection of claims 5-7, 9 and 16-18 as being
unpatentable over Sud is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007