Appeal No. 1999-1656
Application No. 08/638,759
numerical aperture limiting member is not “disposed near an imaging position of the
optical system” (Claim 5), or that the member does not comprise “a plurality of light
transmitting portions and a plurality of light screening portions which are arranged
alternately in one plane” (Claim 6). We sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5, and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Nose.
Section 103 rejection over Hugle and Nose
Because we find that claims 2, 5, and 6 are anticipated by Nose, we sustain the
rejection of those claims under section 103 as being unpatentable over Hugle and Nose,
and consider Hugle to be merely cumulative in the rejection. A finding of anticipation
means that the claims are also obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, since "anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness." See, e.g., Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542,
1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215
USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644
(CCPA 1974).
As for the remainder of the claims, appellant argues that Hugle teaches a “field-
lens” array 48 for reducing cross-talk in the imaging system. The field lenses serve to
collimate the light. Because the undesired light “gets lost in the system” -- does not reach
the imaging plane -- appellant urges that the teachings of Nose would be inapplicable.
See Hugle at col. 9, ll. 13-45.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007