Appeal No. 1998-0146
Application 08/407,058
on the surface while performing several low speed
reciprocations of the carriage 3 containing the optical head
4.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to provide Adachi with a control to reciprocate the
objective lens in the radial direction as suggested by
Mitani (FR5: EA6): "The motivation would have been:
reciprocating the cleaning actions of the objective lens
would have worn the cleaning member and cleaned the
objective lens more evenly, providing longevity for the
cleaning disk and the lens."
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rationale for the
combination relies on two problems with prior art devices
(only part of the brush is used for cleaning and the lens
can not be perfectly cleaned) which are only disclosed by
Appellants and, thus, the Examiner has improperly utilized
Appellants' disclosure as a roadmap for the proposed
combination (Br26-27).
In this case, Adachi discloses moving the lens in a
radial direction and at the same time (i.e.,
"simultaneously") bringing the objective lens into contact
- 18 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007