Appeal No. 1999-0832 Page 10
Application No. 08/147,793
As the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
with respect to claim 6, there is no need for appellants to
rebut; which we note, is what appellants have done.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
OBSERVATIONS AND REMARKS
Although the metes and bounds of the claims can be
readily ascertained in light of the specification, and the
examiner has not set forth any rejection of the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we note that as a formal
matter, the relation- ship between the optical discriminator
and the polarization analyzer optic of claims 1 and 7 should
be clarified. The same applies, by way of example, to the
relationship between the imaging optics and the cylindrically
symmetric optics of claims 1 and 7. In addition, the grammar
and syntax should be corrected as necessary; i.e., "having a
peripheries" (claim 1, lines 14 and 15), and "whereby
intensity of brightest features of the object near a level of
the detector response saturation point" (claim 6, lines 5 and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007