Appeal No. 1997-0811
Application No. 08/240,554
simultaneously. Therefore, appellants argue that Lee does not
suggest moving image sources in response to lateral movement
of the lenses [brief, pages 28-29]. The examiner notes that
Heilig’s knobs could be turned in a manner to achieve
simultaneous movement of image sources and image transfer
units.
We agree with appellants that the overall
relationships between the mirrors, lenses and adjustment means
of claim 14, and the synchronous and simultaneous movements
specifically recited in claim 14 are not suggested by the
collective teachings of the applied prior art. The examiner
has sought to pick and choose elements of the claim from
diverse teachings which do not suggest their combination.
Additionally, we agree with appellants that even if the
artisan combined the teachings of the applied prior art, the
specific relationships recited in claim 14 would not result.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14 as
formulated by the examiner.
Finally, we consider the rejection of claims 15 and 16
as unpatentable over Schoolman, Heilig, Lindsay and Trumbull.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007