Appeal No. 2001-1795
Application 08/825,196
Appellant argues that claim 1 recites a “means for
independently and permanently preventing the rotation of each
ocular with respect to the support assembly at respective regions
of rotation once a desired convergence angle has been achieved”
which is written in means-plus-function form. Appellant argues
that the examiner has failed to consider appellant’s
specification to determine what corresponds to the claimed means.
Appellant argues that neither Burbo nor Funathu discloses the
feature of fixing a convergence angle as a function of working
distance. Appellant also argues that there is no motivation for
combining the teachings of Burbo and Funathu. Finally, appellant
argues that Vansaghi does not teach an apparatus which begins
with a variable convergence angle which is then fixed into place
through a permanent means.
The examiner responds by essentially repeating the
rejection of claim 1 [answer, pages 14-16].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1
because the rejection fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The rejection states that the limitation that “each
ocular device being initially rotatable with respect to the
support assembly at respective regions of rotation, the relative
rotation between the pair of oculars establishing a convergence
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007