Appeal No. 1997-0811
Application No. 08/240,554
Dependent claims 4 and 8 stand rejected on the
teachings of Schoolman and Heilig and further in view of Suwa.
Dependent claim 13 stands rejected on the teachings of
Schoolman and Heilig and further in view of Henkes. Since
neither Suwa nor Henkes overcomes the deficiencies noted above
in the basic combination
of Schoolman and Heilig, we do not sustain the rejection of
these dependent claims as formulated by the examiner.
We now consider the rejection of claim 14 as
unpatentable over Schoolman and Heilig and further in view of
Suwa and Lee. Many of the examiner’s positions have been
considered above. The examiner also asserts that the claimed
recitation of simultaneous movement and synchronous movement
would have been obvious in view of Lee’s teaching of moving
lenses simultaneously in two orthogonal directions.
Appellants argue that claim 14 recites that the image sources
are simultaneously movable in two orthogonal directions.
According to appellants, Lee’s image sources are fixed and
only the lenses or image transfer units are movable
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007