Ex parte YOO et al. - Page 5

          Appeal No. 1998-2009                                                        
          Application No. 08/508,250                                                  

               With respect to independent claims 1 and 5, the Examiner               
          reasons the Tatsuno discloses the claimed invention, as                     
          depicted in Figure 17, except that Tatsuno uses a single lens               
          instead of the claimed pair of lenses.  The Examiner notes                  
          that Kobayashi discloses an objective lens system including a               
          pair of lenses                                                              
          (3 and 2 in Figure 1) for focusing light from a laser light                 
          source into a spot (final rejection-page 2).  The Examiner                  
               To one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of                     
               the invention it would have been obvious to replace                    
               the objective lens of Tatsuno with the lens system                     
               as taught by Kobayashi for focusing the light from                     
               the light source into a spot on the optical                            
               modulator thereby improving accuracy over a range of                   
               temperature and distance variations while                              
               maintaining a desired imaging magnification ratio                      
               and maintaining the distance between the object and                    
               the image (see column 4 lines 23-30).  Note in                         
               example 1 of Kobayashi the focal length of the                         
               collimating lens f =26.45 and the focal length of the                  
               objective lens f =3.401, therefore f +f =29.951 whichO                 C   O                                
               is greater than the distance between the lenses,                       
               D’=12.90. [Final rejection-pages 2 and 3.]                             
               Appellants argue strenuously that, even if Tatsuno and                 
          Kobayashi were combined, all claim limitations would not be                 
          met.  In particular, lens 3 of Kobayashi is not a collimating               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007