Appeal No. 1998-0160
Application No. 08/529,330
problems and solutions that are taught are limited in application to light in the visible
portion of the spectrum. We thus consider appellants’ arguments with respect to the “pair
of tilted lens elements” to be unavailing.
Appellants’ next argument with respect to Claim 1 is that Schmidt ‘757 is deficient
in that the apparatus “moves the visible eyepiece assembly into and out of position
whenever the image converter is moved into and out of position and does not use the
eyepiece for both vision systems.” (Id.) The assertion is contrary to the disclosure of
Schmidt ‘757, in particular at column 2, lines 35 through 36 and column 2, line 59 through
column 3, line 8, and as shown in Figure 1. Optics 20 for daylight viewing and image
converter 15 are rotatable on revolving disc 16 about axis 17, for selecting between day
and night viewing. In both cases, the image is viewed through eyepiece lens assembly 24,
which is mounted on fixed tube 1.
Appellants also argue that Schmidt ‘757 “uses a totally different reticle system” (id.),
an observation with which we agree. Schmidt ‘757 discloses a locating marker reticle 40
for a “secondary weapon” (Fig. 3), a line marker reticle 41 (Fig. 1) for the daylight viewing
system, and a line marker reticle 42 (Figure 4) with lamp L and separate optical system 43
for the nighttime viewing system. See Schmidt ‘757, column 3, lines 59 through 70.
Appellants’ Claim 1 requires that the “night reticle display” be “positioned between
[the] image converter and [the] eyepiece lens assembly....” The examiner refers to Traeger
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007