Appeal No. 96-3994
Application 08/260,485
With respect to the language of independent claims 1 and
4 on appeal, “the full open aperture diameter thereof being
constant as the focal length varies so that the full open
aperture value thereof is varied,” it is stated by the
examiner as not being understood. At page 6 of the answer,
the examiner additionally questions the language of another
clause, the first decision means clause of claim 1, which is
stated to determine “the extent to which the aperture diameter
is capable of being controlled toward an opening direction.”
This is urged by the examiner as implying that the diameter is
not held constant. Thus, there was stated to be an apparent
inconsistency.
We reverse this rejection because the examiner's position
is easily answered by an understanding of the specification as
filed. In the summary of the invention at page 3 of the
principal brief on appeal, appellants attempt to correlate the
features of claim 1 to certain portions of the written
description as originally filed. To these portions specified,
we add the following: The discussion of Figures 9 and 10 at
pages 12 and 13 and, most importantly, the discussion of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007