Appeal No. 1997-0897
Application No. 08/227,992 Page 16
examiner adds (id., page 17) that the strips k of Rhodes can also
be adjusted so as to take up any aberration or defect in the
lens. The examiner asserts (id., page 6) that it would have been
obvious to combine the teachings of Rhodes and the admitted prior
art for the reasons discussed in the combination of Koch and the
admitted prior art. As to claims 2, 4, 5, 21, and 22, the
examiner's position is that (id.) "these [claims] recite the same
three ideas of changing focal length by altering chamfer depth,
thickness, or angle of the transparent covering." The examiner
asserts that these limitations would also have been obvious for
the reasons discussed in the combination of Koch and the admitted
prior art.
Appellants assert (brief, pages 29 and 30) that with respect
to claim 1, the admitted prior art does not teach or suggest
changing a thickness of a transparent covering along a light
receiving axis, and that the examiner has not relied upon Rhodes
for this feature. Appellants argue that the admitted prior art
and Rhodes therefore do not teach or suggest all of the features
of claim 1. With respect to independent claims 3 and 20,
appellants assert (brief, pages 30 and 31) that the admitted
prior art and Rhodes do not teach or suggest changing the
thickness of a transparent covering along a light receiving axis,
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007