Appeal No. 1997-1766
Application No. 08/245,033
column 2, lines 60 through 63, that "though the embodiment is
not illustrated in connection with the image magnification
varying function, say the zoom lens, it is to be understood
that the present invention is applicable also to zoom lenses."
However, we note that Kitagishi does not teach how the
application to zoom lenses would be done.
Upon our consideration of all the references as to what
they teach and suggest to those skilled in the art, we find
that the references suggest to those skilled in the art that
at best one would be able to apply a vibration reduction
device to a zoom lens system having five separate lens units.
However, the teachings as a whole would only suggest to those
skilled in the art that any one of these lens units may be
decentered. The art would not suggest to those skilled in the
art that it would be optimal to only decenter the second lens
unit. As Appellant's disclosure supports, Appellant has
discovered that it is only by decentering the second lens unit
that one obtains the benefits as disclosed. Therefore, we
find that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
either the Ogawa five-unit zoom lens or the Ishii five-unit
-12-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007