Appeal No. 1997-3919
Application 08/392,160
projecting a light of focus index to the object to be
observed.
Upon our review of Kinoshita, we find that Kinoshita
teaches on page 4, a pattern projecting optics 4 for
projecting a light of focus index to the object to be
observed. Therefore, we find that Kinoshita's pattern
projection optics 4 meet Appellant's claimed focus index
projecting optic system as recited in Appellant's claim 5.
Therefore, we find that the Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner has erred in making this rejection in regard to
Appellant's claim 5.
We note that Appellant has chosen not to argue any of the
other specific limitations of claim 5 as a basis for
patentability. As stated by our reviewing court in In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285
(Fed. Cir. 1991), "[i]t is not the function of this court to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an
appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior
art." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a)(July 1, 1996) as amended at 60
Fed. Reg. 14518 (March 17, 1995), which was controlling at the
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007