Appeal No. 1999-1656
Application No. 08/638,759
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed May 7, 1998) and the Examiner's Answer
(mailed Mar. 2, 1999) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (filed Jan.
15, 1999) and the Reply Brief (filed Apr. 30, 1999) for appellant’s position with respect to
the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Section 102 rejection over Nose
In the rejection of claims 2, 5, and 6 as being anticipated by Nose, the examiner
points to “kerfs” 94, 97 (Fig. 24) or “light-intercepting masks” 106, 109 (Fig. 26) as
“diffraction light selecting elements.” (Answer at 4.) Appellant disagrees (Brief at 11-13).
As described in the reference’s “Background of the Invention,” a prior art facsimile
apparatus (Figs. 1 and 2) used imaging lenses 7 , 7 , 7 , for conveying images from1 2 3
original document 5 to solid sensors 9 , 9 , 9 . Nose at col. 1, ll. 12-56. However, there1 2 3
were problems inherent in the manufacture and use of discrete imaging lenses. Id. at col.
3, ll. 27-68. Nose’s solution was to replace the discrete lenses of the prior art with zone
plates (e.g., Fresnel type). Id. at col. 4, ll. 1-42.
The structure shown in Figure 24 of Nose for imaging the original 89 comprises
means for intercepting light 91 through 91 , zone plates 92 , 92 , 92 , substrates 93, 961 4 1 2 3
secured together by adhesive 95, light-intercepting kerfs 94 -94 and 97 -97 , and sensors1 4 1 4
99 , 99 , and 99 . Id. at col. 10, ll. 34-45. The light-intercepting kerfs serve to block light1 2 3
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007