Appeal No. 1997-3301
Application No. 08/159,879
graphical pattern of the lens array of the chopper. See
Specification, p. 3.
Appellants point out that (Brief, p. 7):
Neither the FLIR [(Forward Looking Infrared)] system
in which the chopper would be used nor the specific
lenslets as set forth in the APPENDIX to the
application is specifically claimed. Everything
that is claimed is fully disclosed and the
individual steps of manufacture are each well known
in the art.
Additionally, appellants point out that the specification, as
originally filed, provides an equation by which the shape of
each lens may be determined. See Brief, p. 7; Specification,
p. 6.
For the reasons set forth by appellants, the rejection of
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is
reversed.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for the following reason (Answer, p. 5):
A spindle or other means for attaching this
[(the chopper)] to a means for rotation is not
recited.
Appellants argue (Brief, pp. 16-17):
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007