Appeal No. 2001-2201
Application .09/065, 997
admitted prior art. As such, the proximity of the baffles in
Kino and Tanaami relative to the relay lens or an eye piece is
immaterial. Additionally, we refer Appellant to the above
discussion regarding teaching the limitation, “to block out-of-
focus light and improve z-axis resolution” found in claim 27.
Appellant has grouped claims 28 and 31 with claim 27 and has
not presented separate arguments. See Appel Brief, page 3, lines
11-12 and page 6, lines 16-19. As such, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 28 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We finally turn to the rejection of claims 4 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Appellant’s admitted
prior art in view of Kino and Takahashi or Tanaami and Takahashi.
The Examiner cites Takahashi to teach the limitations, “the
diameter of the baffles is adjustable” found in claims 4 and 6.
To provide a motivation to combine the references, the Examiner
states that “[i]t would have been obvious at the time of [the]
invention to use such a baffle with [an] adjustable diameter in
the above discussed combination of prior art teachings in order
to provide the user with active control over the amount of light
reaching various portions of the detector.” See Examiner’s
Answer, page 4, line 18 through page 5, line 2. Appellant argues
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007