Appeal No. 1997-0897
Application No. 08/227,992 Page 19
transparent covering on the frame having tapered sides to
increase the thickness of the transparent covering along a light
receiving axis to change the focal length comes from appellants'
disclosure.
With respect to independent claims 3 and 20, while we agree
with the examiner that chamfers are known to be used to reduce
the risk of injury to a user, we find no suggestion of providing
top and bottom chamfers of different depths on the transparent
covering to change the thickness of the transparent covering
above the top portion of the frame. Moreover, we find the
examiner's conclusionary statement (answer, page 6) that it would
have been obvious to select appropriate coverings through trial
and error, by trying different coverings, or trying a single
covering in different orientations and angles until a best result
is obtained, to be speculation, unsupported by evidence in the
record. From all of the above, we find that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claims
1-5 and 20-22. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-5 and 20-
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007