Appeal No. 2001-1795
Application 08/825,196
With respect to representative, independent claim 15, the
examiner included this claim with the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant argues that neither Burbo, Vansaghi nor Funathu teaches
the step of determining a preferred convergence angle as a
function of working distance, and permanently fixing the ocular
devices to the preferred convergence angle as claimed [brief,
pages 9-10]. The examiner responds that the claimed method
limitations are essentially inherent functional teachings of the
applied prior art. The examiner also finds that Vansaghi teaches
the argued limitations of claim 15 [answer, pages 16-17].
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 15-19.
Although Vansaghi does teach the relationship between a preferred
convergence angle and a working distance, the applied prior art
does not teach the step of permanently fixing the ocular devices
to the preferred convergence angle after the preferred
convergence angle has been determined through adjustment. The
applied prior art appears to leave the convergence angle always
adjustable so that the working distance can be modified for other
uses.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007