Appeal No. 1999-0832 Page 5
Application No. 08/147,793
Appellant asserts (brief, page 3) that Suzuki does not
disclose the claimed arrangement of elements. Appellants
further assert (id.) that appellants use a polarizer to
extinguish light which has not interacted with a specimen, and
that this "effect has not occurred in Suzuki." Although
appellants describe the differences between the optical
apparatus and appellants' invention, appellants do not point
out any specific language in the claims that appellants
consider to distinguish over Suzuki. The specification
(page 4) discusses the differences between the Suzuki
reference and appellants' invention stating, inter alia, that:
The present invention distinguishes itself from the
invention of Suzuki in that the polarizer is used to
control the quantity of light that enters the camera
for an exposure control means. The polarizers of the
invention are used to discriminate against light
having
a certain property and does not act uniformly on the
entire beam as the polarizers of the Suzuki invention do.
We observe that claim 1 recites, inter alia:
whereby the light from said object of the image
passes freely through an optical discriminator and
into a pupil and light from a source, said source
appearing in a field-of-view of imaging optics, is
blocked at a discriminator optic and does not pass
into the pupil of the imaging optics;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007