Appeal No. 1997-3919
Application 08/392,160
Appellant points out that Kinoshita and Salzmann disclosed
using IR light source 10 and not a light source that would
provide a wavelength of visible area.
Upon our review of Kinoshita and Salzmann, we find that
neither reference teaches "an index projecting optical system
for projecting index for focus by luminous flux having
wavelength of a visible area, the index projecting optical
system having projecting luminous flux at least a part of
which is common with a wavelength of illumination luminous
flux of said illuminating optical system" as recited in
Appellant's claim 1. We note that neither Kinoshita nor
Salzmann teach an index projecting optical system for
projecting index for focus by a luminous flux having
wavelength of a visible area.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kinoshita and Salzmann. On page 12 of the
appeal brief, Appellant argues that Salzmann does not teach an
index projecting optical system to be used to project an index
for focus.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007