Appeal No. 96-2953
Application 08/258,565
only uses coherent light in the eighth example (column 6,
lines 45 and 46) as opposed to claim 15's recitation of a
coherent collimated beam; and McMurtry passes the light beam
only once through a moving grating (11) while claim 15 recites
a beam path that passes through a moving
grating twice (entering and exiting the rotary cylinder which
comprises a second grating). Thus, we will not sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 15.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 16 through 19 as unpatentable over Ikeuchi in view of
Katayama in further view of Muraoka and Ichikawa, Appellants
argue:
[I]t is noted that the Examiner alleges
that it would be obvious to incorporate a
condensing means, either a Fresnel lens or
a condensing lens, into the aperture of the
above references or in place of the filter
because “a condensing lens is a well known
device to accurately direct light to a
particular point, i.e. a detector area and
the use of a condensing means on the
movable object would help make the
measurements for position more accurate by
making sure all the light which hits the
area is directed to a point on the
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007