Appeal No. 1998-2473
Application No. 08/556,890
does not teach that movement of a lens to vary a focal point location is “inadequate.” It
merely indicates that there is need for improvement over the prior art technique of focusing
which avoids the use of multiple detectors and lower frequency servo systems. We find no
such “teaching away” by Mickleson, as alleged by appellants.
Appellants next argue that if it were obvious to remove Mickleson’s piezoelectric
element 25 and simply move lens 31, Mickleson would have utilized this approach since it
would have simplified the system and increased the range over which the focal length
could be adjusted. We do not find this argument persuasive since obviousness must be
determined by the whole of the prior art and knowledge of the theoretical “skilled artisan”
and not by looking at one prior art reference and concluding that something is not obvious
because that particular reference did not do it and because one particular artisan did not
specifically recognize appellants’ improvement.
Finally, appellants argue that the examiner is incorrect in the conclusion that it would
have been obvious to replace one moveable element with another. More particularly,
appellants argue that that would be correct only if both elements were clear equivalents
and would be an obvious design choice only if there was no advantage of one element
over the other. However, appellants contend that there are various advantages of the
instant claimed invention over anything shown by Mickleson.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007