Appeal No. 1997-0897
Application No. 08/227,992 Page 18
from the partition so as to take up any aberration or defect in
the lens (page 2, lines 56-80). Because the admitted prior art
is directed to a line reader, and Rhodes is directed to a camera
which reads an entire image at one time by adjusting the
sensitized plates to correct for defects in the lens, we find
that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to combine the teachings of the admitted prior art and
Rhodes. Assuming arguendo that one of ordinary skill was
motivated to combine the teachings of the admitted prior art and
Rhodes, claim 1 would not be met because Rhodes' teaching of
adjusting the sensitized plates would suggest changing the light
receiving element 115 laterally, longitudinally, or away from
base plate 116, but would not suggest changing the incline of the
transparent covering. In addition, we find no suggestion of
supporting the partition board I on the tapered edge of the
recess of Rhodes, but find, rather, that the partition board I
rests against blocks h2. In any event, the tapered portion of
Rhodes is not for adjusting focus, and the frame D2 having the
tapered portion would correspond to the portion of the frame 110
of the admitted prior art that secures base plate 116 in place,
and not to the portion of the frame that receives the transparent
covering. We find that the only suggestion of inclining the
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007