Appeal No. 1996-3284
Application 08/154,864
Garcia does show a collimating lens 23, however, the Examiner
has not shown how such a collimating lens of Garcia can be
used in Ciongoli, or why an artisan would use it to replace
lens 15 of Ciongoli. The additional use of Bassett does not
add any thing to cure the deficiency of Ciongoli. Therefore,
we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 5 to 9
over Ciongoli in view of Garcia and Bassett.
In conclusion, we reverse the Examiner’s final rejection
of claim 3 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We
also reverse the final rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph with respect to claim 9, but affirm with respect to
claims 3 and 4. We also reverse the final rejection of claims
5 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Ciongoli. Furthermore, we
reverse the obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
claim claims 5 to 9 over Ciongoli, Garcia and Bassett. Also,
we have pro forma reversed the rejection of the Examiner under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as well as under § 103 as to claims 3 and 4.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER 37 37 CFR § 1. 196(b)
We make the following new grounds of rejection.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph for lack of adequate written description. Each of
-14-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007