Appeal No. 1994-4024 Page 3
Application No. 07/759,865 Paper No. 31
that the first apparatus was a camera mount, while the second
apparatus corresponded to the lens mount (Paper No. 27 at 4-
5). The decision cautioned, however, that if claim 7 covered
a plastic lens mount having a circumferential groove, then
"the admitted prior art provides the teaching for a lens mount
with such a groove" (Paper No. 27 at 5 n.3). The decision
listed two reasons why the first apparatus had to be the
camera:
(1) the mount for the first apparatus had to be made of
plastic and only the camera mount was disclosed as being made
of plastic; and
(2) the concave portion 3c on the lens mount was not a
circumferential groove.
On rehearing, the examiner offers a claim construction
for the first time, including a basis in the specification for
reading claim 7 more broadly (Paper No. 29 at 1):
Specifically, it is apparent that the Board
overlooked the disclosure of a plastic lens mount at
page 9, lines 7-10, of the specification.
The portion of the specification cited states (Paper No. 1
at 9:5-11):
It should be noted that though in the above
described embodiments, the plastic mount has been
used for the mount for [the] camera, the mounts of
the photographic lens, [the] intermediate tube,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007