Ex parte YOO et al. - Page 7

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

                 being compared to a coupling lens system.  As to the                                                                                   
                 Examiner’s second contention, we do not find element 3 of                                                                              
                 Figure 2(c) (or for that matter Figure 1) depicted as a                                                                                
                 collimator.  Both figures show the emerging light as                                                                                   
                 continuing to diverge, as opposed to being collimated.                                           1                                     
                          Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the                                                                                
                 collimating lens of both independent claims is not met by the                                                                          
                 Examiner’s combination of references.                                                                                                  
                          Since Kobayashi’s Figure 1 cannot be relied upon (it does                                                                     
                 not have a collimating lens), Kobayashi’s Example 1 cannot be                                                                          
                 relied upon for the claimed distance between the pair of                                                                               
                 lenses.  Furthermore, although the distance of Example 1                                                                               
                 (cited by the Examiner) was not contested by Appellants, we                                                                            
                 have difficulty accepting this as meeting the claimed distance                                                                         
                 between the pair of lenses.  The Examiner cites “d” as 12.90                                                                           
                 being the operative distance.  It is unclear from Kobayashi,                                                                           
                 exactly what “d” represents.  However, “d” of 12.90 is related                                                                         

                          1We note that Appellants’ collimating lens 2 in Figure 3                                                                      
                 shows the emerging  light as converging instead of being                                                                               
                 collimated.  Since the specification clearly supports lens 2                                                                           
                 as being a collimator, this figure should be corrected in                                                                              
                 accordance with 37 CFR  1.83(a).                                                                                                      


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007