Appeal No. 2001-1208
Application No. 09/057,585
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the anticipation rejections of claims 1 and
7, and the obviousness rejections of claims 2 through 6 and 28.
On the other hand, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of
claims 8 through 26 and 29.
Appellant argues (brief, page 7; reply brief, page 3) that
“all of the input light impinges upon only one image forming
unit” in claim 1, whereas “Burstyn teaches separating the input
light into three color components that respectively impinge upon
separate coupling prism assemblies 10 (i.e., three coupling prism
assemblies are required).” Appellant’s argument concerning “all”
of the input light is not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Nothing in claim 1 indicates that “all” of the input light
impinges upon the “only one” image forming unit. More
importantly, nothing in claim 1 precludes “separating” the input
light into three color components. Notwithstanding the fact that
Burstyn’s optical assembly (Figure 1) for a reflector-type
projector may handle only a single color (brief, page 6), the
limitations of claim 1 still read on that portion of Burstyn’s
projector assembly. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claim 1 is sustained.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007