Appeal 2007-1710
Application 10/098,016
Second Issue.
Initially, we note that we only address this issue as it concerns claim 8
as the first issue is dispositive of determining error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1 and the claims dependent thereupon.
Appellants’ arguments directed to the second issue have not
convinced us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. The preamble
of claim 8 recites “A mountable device for adjusting a light beam in an
optical system defining a beam path.” The preamble does not identify
whether or not the mountable device contains the optical system or not. As
such, we do not find that claim is limited to a mountable device which is
separate from the optical system. Further, we note that claim 8 recites no
limitation defining the function or use of the optical system. Claim 8 further
recites “means for coupling-in the light beam into a housing part of the
device defining an optical axis of the device,” and “at least a first photo
detector and a second photo detector both mounted on a housing part of the
device.” Both of these limitations recite the existence of a housing part of
the device; however, these limitations do not identify that the “means for
coupling-in” and the photo detectors are the only elements in the housing
part of the device. Thus, the scope of claim 8 includes a device with a
housing that contains the means for coupling-in and at least two photo
detectors. The claim is not limited to the device being separate from an
optical system.
As discussed supra with respect to the first issue, we find that Nishio
teaches the optical system with light beam and coupled-in light beam as
claimed. Further, as discussed in our findings of fact, we find that Nishio
teaches a housing which contains and provides mountings for the “means for
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013