Appeal No. 1999-0832 Page 7
Application No. 08/147,793
image pick-up surface can be maintained constant even if the
image magnification is continuously changed by zooming."
From our review of Suzuki, we find no teaching or
suggestion of the claim language “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.” The examiner has not pointed to
any teaching or disclosure in Suzuki, or advance any line of
reasoning that would suggest that the optical apparatus of
Suzuki was capable of meeting the limitations regarding the
claimed optical discriminator. Accordingly, we find that the
examiner has failed to establish anticipation of independent
claims 1 and 7, as well as dependent claim 4, by Suzuki. The
rejection of claims 1, 4, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
therefore reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Suzuki considered with
Kino. The examiner merely relies upon Kino for a disclosure
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007