Appeal No. 1998-2473
Application No. 08/556,890
The examiner relies on the following references:
Wilkinson 4,358,774 Nov. 09, 1982
Mickleson et al. [Mickleson] 4,445,209 Apr. 24, 1984
Claims 1, 3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over either
one of Mickleson or Wilkinson.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
With regard to the rejection of the claims based on Mickleson, both the examiner
and appellants note that Mickleson does not show an optical fiber. However, the examiner
reasons that this is a “well known” optical waveguide and appellants do not argue to the
contrary.
Appellants do argue, with respect to Mickleson, that the reference teaches away
from the instant invention because Mickleson indicates that the technique of moving a lens
to vary a focal point location is inadequate and so Mickleson uses a piezoelectric element
to effect an alteration of the optical path between two lenses. We have reviewed column 1,
line 63 through column 2, line 29 of Mickleson, which describes the prior art to Mickleson,
and we agree with the examiner that this section of the reference
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007