Appeal No. 2001-1344
Application No. 09/218,763
the very least, there is no description as to how light rays from
objects at 180° would be able to pass through aperture 44.
After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis of the embodiment
illustrated in Appellant’s Figure 10, however, which includes a
lens 60 placed in front of aperture 44, we reach the opposite
conclusion as to whether a reasonable basis exists for challenging
the sufficiency of the disclosure with regard to the claimed
invention. In discussing Appellant’s Figure 10 embodiment, th
ENDFIELD
Examiner (Answer, page 7) reasons, and we do not necessarily
disagree, that such structure is not capable of directing light to
aperture 44 beyond 180° and up to 220° as is its intended design.
We would point out, however, that the claimed invention does not
require an image viewing device which produces a field of view
image beyond 180° but, rather, only a device which produces a field
of view image of at least 180°. With this is mind, we simply find
no basis provided by the Examiner for concluding that light rays
from an image directed through an aperture through the intermediary
of an optical lens would not produce an image with a field of view
of at least 180° as claimed.
In view of the above discussion, we find that the Examiner has
not established a reasonable basis for challenging the sufficiency
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007