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).
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007