Appeal No. 96-3994
Application 08/260,485
Therefore, there can be no true indefiniteness here within the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Appellants are, thus,
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming what they
regard as their invention within this statutory provision. As
such, the rejection of claims 1 through 8 under the second
paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112, must be reversed.
Turning next to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 7 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, this rejection also is reversed. Once
the proper context in which the disclosed invention is
appreciated in light of the matters just discussed, our study
of Maruyama leads us to the same conclusions set forth by
appellants in the principal brief on appeal. Essentially,
Maruyama's approach is entirely different than that of the
appellants. This reference fails to disclose a constant full
open aperture during focal length changes so that the full
open aperture value is varied as recited in the initial
portion of independent claims 1 and 4 on appeal. The
reference also would therefore by necessity fail to disclose
the claimed first and second decision means notwith-standing
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007