Ex Parte BOHN - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2004-2142                                                        
          Application No. 09/220,736                                                  

          blocks a predetermined amount of light from a brightly                      
          illuminated region in the illuminated area but does not                     
          substantially block light from a less brightly illuminated region           
          in the illuminated area.                                                    

               Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:           
               1.  An optical system for forming an image of at least a               
          portion of an illuminated area on an object, the illuminated area           
          being characterized by at least one brightly illuminated region             
          and at least one less brightly illuminated region, comprising:              
               a lens positioned a spaced distance from the illuminated               
          area on the object, said lens having an image side focal plane;             
               an aperture stop positioned so that it is substantially co-            
          planar with the image side focal plane of said lens; and                    
               an occluding element positioned between said lens and the              
          illuminated area on the object so that said occluding element               
          blocks a predetermined amount of light from the brightly                    
          illuminated region but does not substantially block light from              
          the less brightly illuminated region.                                       
               The examiner relies on the following reference:                        
          Thomson                    3,825,747            Jul. 23, 1974               

               Claims 1-3 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)             
          as anticipated by Thomson.                                                  
               Claims 4-6 and 10-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as           
          unpatentable over Thomson.                                                  
                                         -2–                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007