Appeal No. 1998-0160
Application No. 08/529,330
For the same reasons, we cannot sustain the rejection of Claim 2-4, 6, 7, 9, 14, and
15, since those claims contain at least the limitations of Claim 1.
Claims 5-7, 9
The rejection adds the teachings of Owen to the combination of references applied
against base Claim 1. Since Owen does not remedy the deficiencies in the rejection with
regard to Claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of Claims 5-7 and 9.
Claims 10-12, 16-26
Appellants argue, in defense of Claim 16:
The combination...includes a laser and a laser beamsplitter for receiving a
laser beam from the laser thereon, and directing the beam through the day
objective lens which is not taught by the Schmidt ‘757 patent nor any of the
cited prior references in an integrated system of this type.
(Brief, page 15.)
The examiner refers, on page 5 of the Final Rejection, to Schmidt ‘905, Iizuka, and
Hatfield for suggestions in the prior art with regard to the addition of a laser rangefinder
system to a day and night sighting system.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007