Appeal No. 1997-0897
Application No. 08/227,992 Page 7
discarded, but what subject matter the patentee
relinquished or disclaimed.
From our review of the record, we agree with appellants that
“change” is a broader term than “adjust.” We are not persuaded
by the examiner’s argument that “change” is random and unfocused.
Neither “adjust” nor “change” necessarily results in a more or
less precise focus, and either term can relate to making the
focal length more precise. Accordingly, we find no disclaimer of
any subject matter. Nor do we find any admission by appellants
that the term “adjusting” is nonenabled. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 1-5, 12-15, 20-23, and 25-27 is reversed.
We turn next to the objection to the specification and
rejection of claims 1-5, 12-15, 20-23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph on the basis that the specification as
originally filed does not provide support for the invention now
claimed. The examiner’s position (answer, pages 4 and 5) is that
the phrase “light receiving axis” is new matter. The examiner
asserts (answer, page 4) that figure 1 shows a line labeled “H”
which is described as a focal length, and that there is no
indication that this line represents a light receiving axis.
Appellants’ assert (brief, page 21) that one of ordinary
skill in the art would ascertain that the light receiving axis
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007