Appeal No. 2006-1900
Application No. 10/163,946
Lastly, as to independent claim 25, appellant’s argument that Mikoshiba does not
disclose a means for varying a cross-sectional area of a light path to an optical detector in
a position detector has been directly addressed by the examiner in the paragraph bridging
pages 10 and 11 of the answer, which has not been responded to by appellant in the reply
brief. Even as to independent claim 1 as well as independent claim 25, there are repeated
teachings in Mikoshiba of his variable aperture in addition to the showings in most of the
figures of the operability of such an element that is shown in Figure 5 of this reference,
which is discussed beginning at the bottom of column 10, line 62 through the top of
column 11 of this reference. Note, for example, the first paragraph at column 11 appears
to directly anticipate the subject matter argued not to be present in Mikoshiba as to
independent claim 25 on appeal.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting various claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007