Appeal No. 98-1030
Application 08/424,115
appellants.
Be this as it may, the examiner's reference evidence
falls short with respect to the limitation in independent
claim 1 requiring the window glass to have "a diameter large
enough so that a virtual image of an outer edge portion of
said window glass, which is produced by a single reflection
from an inner side of an outer surface of said transparent
cover, lies outside the visual field of said objective optical
system."
According to the examiner, "the window glass 44 of Ohkuwa
has a diameter that is large enough so as to prevent a virtual
image from lying [inside] the visual field of the objective
optical system" (final rejection, page 5). In the same vein,
the examiner states that
Figure 5 of OHKUWA shows that the window glass 44
has a diameter that is large enough so that a
virtual image of an outer edge portion of the window
glass 44 (as produced by a reflection from an inner
side of an outer surface of the sheath of KLEIN as
applied to the endoscope of OHKUWA) lies outside the
visual field of the optical system of the endoscope
[answer, page 4].
In the earlier appeal involving parent Application
07/893,044, the appellants did not challenge essentially
identical findings by the examiner. In the present appeal,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007