Ex Parte Hendriks et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 7, 2017

12666545 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/666,545 12/23/2009 Bernardus Hendrikus Wihelmu Hendriks 2007P01344WOUS 1162
24737 7590 09/11/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue MCGEE, JAMES R
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
marianne. fox @ philips, com
debbie.henn @philips .com
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERNARDUS HENDRIKUS WILHELMU
HENDRIKS, JEFF SHIMIZU, and STEIN KUIPER
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,5451
Technology Center 2800
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-9, 12-17, 19-22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a).3
App. Br. 3; Ans. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The real party in interest is identified as Koninklijke Philips, N.V. App.
Br. 3.
2 In our opinion we refer to the Specification (filed Dec. 23, 2009 as
amended Aug. 15, 2014) (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action (dated Nov. 17,
2014) (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 16, 2015) (“App. Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer (dated Sept. 2, 2015) (“Ans.”), the Decision on Petition
to Designate a New Ground of Rejection (dated July 1, 2016) (“Decision on
Petition”), and the Reply Brief (filed Aug. 29, 2016) (“Reply Br.”).
3 The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 12 for depending from
canceled claim 18 stands withdrawn. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
The subject matter of this appeal relates to a lens system, specifically
a lens system in an optical biopsy device. Spec. 1. Optical biopsy is
described as an alternative method to minimal-invasive surgery to determine
the status of a suspicious lesion to determine if disease has affected the
tissue. Id. In order to scan a significant area within a limited time and also
have high sensitivity and specificity, two different optical devices are
required: camera-like imaging to view larger areas and microscope-like
imaging to view tissue on a cellular level. Id. According to the
Specification, “a single optical biopsy device [that] can switch between two
different views of a target site without the device having to be removed from
the patient” would be more efficient and effective than providing two
different optical devices. Id. at 1—2. Figures la and lb below show the lens
system of Appellants’ invention transforming beam 40, 50 emerging from a
target (not shown) at a first magnification and at a second magnification,
respectively:
FIG. la
FIG. lb
2
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
Figures la and lb identify, in lens system 1, first lens group 10, second lens
group 20, common optical axis 60, intermediate image 70, and image sensor
30. Id. at 6—7. At the second magnification (Fig. lb), the lens system
images a target from close proximity. Id. at 6.
Claims 1 and 2 are illustrative of the issues in this appeal and are
reproduced from the Claims Appendix (paragraphing and italics added):
1. A lens system comprising:
a first lens group and a second lens group configured to
form an image at a first magnification and at a second
magnification,
the lens system comprising a common optical axis in both
the first and the second magnifications,
wherein the lens system is further configured to form an
intermediate image between the first lens group and the second
lens group at the first magnification, and no intermediate image
at the second magnification.
2. A lens system for an optical biopsy device comprising
a first lens group and a second lens group configured to
form an image at a first magnification and at a second
magnification,
the lens system having a common optical axis in both the
first and the second magnifications,
wherein the lens system is further configured to form an
intermediate image between the first lens group and the second
lens group at the first magnification, and not to form the
intermediate image at the second magnification.
App. Br. 19 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the rejections of
claims 1—9, 12—17, 19-22, and 24. App. Br. 3; Ans. 2. Appellants
separately argue the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1, 7, and
3
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
15 as anticipated by Kudo4 and of claims 2 and 21 as anticipated by Lobb.5
App. Br. 7—16. Appellants rely on those same arguments for the dependent
claims and do not separately argue the rejections of dependent claims 4, 9,
13, 14, 17, 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kudo in combination with
additional references. App. Br. 7—16. In accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41,37(c)(l)(iv), and in view of the lack of arguments directed to the
subsidiary rejections under § 103(a), the dependent claims will stand or fall
together with the independent claim on which they depend either directly or
indirectly.
OPINION
The dispositive issues for this appeal are (1) whether the Examiner
erred in construing “no intermediate image at the second magnification”
recited in claim 1 as a negative limitation entitled to a narrow reasonable
interpretation of no intermediate image is formed for the second
magnification; (2) whether the Examiner erred in construing claim 2 as not
precluding additional optical components; (3) whether the Examiner erred in
finding that Kudo’s image P4 is not used to produce the second
magnification corresponding to Kudo’s image Pn of Figure 56 and therefore
Kudo discloses “no intermediate image at the second magnification” as
recited in claim 1; and (4) whether the Examiner erred in finding that Lobb
discloses forming an image at image plane 86a for the second magnification,
which image plane is not formed between the first lens group and the second
lens group because it is inside the zoom lens instead.
4 Kudo et al., US 5,836,869, issued Nov. 17, 1998 (“Kudo”).
5 Lobb, US 5,214,538, issued May 25, 1993 (“Lobb”).
4
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
After review of the arguments and evidence presented by both
Appellants and the Examiner, we affirm the stated rejections.
Anticipation by Kudo
The Examiner determines that Kudo discloses the subject matter of
claims 1, 7, and 15 for the reasons stated on pages 3—6 of the Final Action.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in
finding that Kudo discloses no intermediate image at the second
magnification because Kudo’s images P3, P4, and P6 exist at all times,
including intermediate image P4. App. Br. 8—12.
The Examiner responds by disagreeing with Appellants’ implied
interpretation of claim 1 as requiring “that the lens system must never form
an image at a first magnification and a second magnification
simultaneously” because claim 1 broadly recites without limitation
“form[ing] an image at a first magnification and at a second magnification.”
Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that Kudo’s image P4 is not used to produce the
second magnification corresponding to Kudo’s wide-angle image P3 of
Figure 55, therefore, Kudo discloses “no intermediate image at the second
magnification” as required by claim 1. Id. The Examiner further finds that
Kudo’s narrow-angle image P6 corresponds to the claimed first
magnification required by claim 1 and that Kudo’s wide-angle image P3
corresponds to the claimed second magnification. Id. (citing Final Act. 19).
In response to Appellants’ argument that Kudo’s image P4 of Figure
56 exists at all times, the Examiner similarly finds Kudo’s image P4 of
Figure 56 is not used to produce the second magnification corresponding to
Kudo’s narrow-angle image Pn. Id. at 6. The Examiner also finds:
5
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
Kudo discloses its embodiment of FIG. 56 includes replacing
beam splitter 709 with a rotatable mirror, such as rotating path­
switching mirror 533 of FIG. 42A. Because no light traverses
the auxiliary optical path upon rotating path-switching mirror
533 to the position shown in broken lines in FIG. 42A, no light
reaches the location of image P4 in FIG. 56, such that no
intermediate image P4 exists when forming narrow-angle image
Pi 1, which corresponds to the second magnification recited in
claim 1.
Id. at 6—7.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants assert that claim 1 should not be
interpreted to form an image at a first magnification and at a second
magnification simultaneously because the subject patent application “does
not disclose a structure that is capable of simultaneously forming images at
the first and second magnifications.” Reply Br. 3^4. Appellants contend
that the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 1 is unreasonable to the extent
that it “defines subject matter not disclosed by Appellant’s application.” Id.
at 4. Appellants also assert that the Examiner’s interpretation of “no
intermediate image at the second magnification” means “no intermediate
image is formed for the second magnification” (Ans. 5) improperly changes
the meaning of the word “at” to mean “for” or “not used to produce.” Reply
Br. 5-6.
According to Appellants, the second through sixth and ninth through
twelfth dictionary definitions (American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th
Edition) of the word “at” comport with Appellants’ use of the word in claim
1. Id. at 11. Appellants concede that the “meaning of ‘toward the direction
of for ‘at’ does not preclude the simultaneous formation of the images at the
first and second magnifications” as used in claim 1, but argue that the
Examiner did not apply this interpretation in the rejection over Kudo’s
6
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
Figure 55 because the Examiner equates Kudo’s image P6 with Appellants’
image with the second magnification and Kudo’s image P3 with Appellants’
image with the first magnification, which would have intermediate image P4
being formed toward the direction of the P6 image and not toward the
direction of the P3 image. Id. at 11.
Appellants further argue that when claim 1 is interpreted to mean no
intermediate image toward the direction of the second magnification, Kudo’s
intermediate image P4 in Figure 56 is created on the optical path to the
location where each of the two images Pn and P12 are created and, therefore,
Kudo’s Figure 56 also does not meet the requirement of the claim under this
interpretation. Id. at 13—14. Regarding Kudo’s disclosure that “beam
splitter 709 may be replaced by a rotatable mirror” in Figure 56 (Kudo
56:24—57:27), Appellants argue that the Final Rejection makes no mention
of this aspect of Kudo and that, combined with the Decision on Petition
dated July 1, 2016 denying Appellants’ request to designate a new ground of
rejection on this basis, “the singular embodiment illustrated by Kudo, et al.’s
Fig. 56 is the only embodiment applied by the Final Rejection in the
rejections of Appellant’s independent claims 1, 7, and 15.” Id. at 15—16.
According to Appellants, the text of Kudo describing replacing the beam
splitter of Figure 56 with a rotatable mirror is a different embodiment than
that of Figure 56. Id. at 17.
For the reasons discussed below, Appellants’ arguments fail to
identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s claim interpretations and
findings as to Kudo. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
First, Appellants do not direct us to any particular portion of the
Specification that precludes the first and second magnification from
7
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
occurring simultaneously. Nor do Appellants direct us to any particular
portion of the Specification that precludes the existence of any intermediate
image outside of the path of the second magnification. Appellants direct us
to Figures la—3b and the portion of the Specification which describes
Figures la—3b as support in the Specification for claim 1 (App. Br. 4).
Figures la—3b are embodiments of Appellants’ invention and the
embodiments as well as the figures are described as non-limiting. Spec. 5.
Based on the cited record on appeal, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s interpretation of claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in
light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into
the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, Appellants acknowledge that the second most common
dictionary definition of “at” defining the term as meaning “toward the
direction of’ is consistent with Appellants’ interpretation of “no intermediate
image at the second magnification” recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 8, 11.
Appellants also acknowledge that this interpretation of the claim “does not
preclude the simultaneous formation of the images at the first and second
magnification within Appellants claim 1.” Id. at 11. Using this
interpretation of Appellants for claim 1, we find that Appellants have not
identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Kudo.
Appellants’ argument that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based
on Kudo’s Figure 55 is not consistent with this interpretation of claim 1
(Reply Br. 11) is not supported by the cited evidence on appeal. Appellants’
argument is based on the incorrect statement the Examiner maps (1) image
P6 of Figure 55 with claim 1 ’s recited image with the second magnification
8
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
and (2) image P3 of Figure 55 with claim 1 ’s recited image with the first
magnification. Id. (citing Ans. 5, last paragraph). However, the Examiner
states the opposite in the Answer:
To clarity the record, Appellant asserts the “Final
Rejection proposes ... Kudo ... discloses:... (3) wide-angle image
P3 corresponds to Appellant’s recited image at a first
magnification, (4) narrow-angle image P6 corresponds to
Appellant’s recited image at a second magnification” (Appeal
Brief page 8). However, paragraph 9 of the Office action of
11/17/2014 [Final Act.] instead correlates Appellant’s first and
second magnifications with Kudo’s narrow-angle image P6 and
wide-angle image P3, respectively.
Ans. 5 (citing Final Act. 19). The Examiner is correct that the Final Action
maps Kudo’s narrow-angle image P6 with the recited first magnification and
Kudo’s wide-angle image P3 with the recited second magnification.
Paragraph 9 in the Final Action states:
wherein the lens system is further configured to form an
intermediate image between the first lens group and the second
lens group at the first magnification (FIG. 55 - intermediate
image P4 for narrow-angle image P6 having magnification Pt),
and no intermediate image at the second magnification (FIG. 55
- no intermediate image for wide-angle image P3 having
magnification pw).
Because Appellants do not identify error in the Examiner’s mapping
of Kudo’s narrow-angle image P6 with the recited first magnification and
Kudo’s wide-angle image P3 with the recited second magnification, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based on
Kudo’s Figure 55. Moreover, if Appellants intended to limit the first
magnification recited in claim 1 to a wide-angle image and also limit the
second magnification recited in claim 1 to a narrow-angle image, such
9
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
limitations do not appear in claim 1 and, therefore, cannot be relied upon for
patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding the Examiner’s mapping of claim 1 to Kudo’s Figure 56,
we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Kudo’s description of
Figure 56 as showing a beam splitter that may be replaced with a rotatable
mirror means that multiple embodiments are required to show all of the
features of the claim (Reply Br. 16). Appellants reason that, because item
709 in Figure 56 is first described in the text of Kudo as a beam splitter and
then as being replaced with a rotatable mirror, Figure 56 by itself, which is
cited in the Final Action, can only describe the embodiment with a beam
splitter and not an embodiment where item 709 is a rotatable mirror. The
problem with Appellants’ argument is that Kudo’s Figure 56 and
accompanying description disclose each and every element of the claimed
invention as arranged in claim 1 when item 709 is a rotatable mirror and “no
intermediate image at the second magnification” recited in claim 1 means
“no intermediate image toward the direction of the second magnification.”
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 7) that replacing
beam splitter 709 with a rotatable mirror, such as the mirror shown in
Kudo’s FIG. 42A, results in “no light reaching] the location of image P4 in
FIG. 56” and “no intermediate image at the second magnification” as
Appellants interpret the limitation recited in claim 1.
Despite the Decision on Petition denying Appellants’ request to
designate the Examiner’s citation to the text of Kudo describing the optional
rotatable mirror in Figure 56 in the Answer a new ground of rejection
(Decision on Petition), Appellants persist in characterizing the textual
description of Figure 56 in Kudo as “Examiner’s Answer’s New Basis for
10
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
Rejecting Claims 1, 7, and 15” (Reply Br. 15). According to Appellants, the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection based on Figure 56 of Kudo is either
limited to one embodiment using a beam splitter or is a combination of more
than one embodiment and therefore “it is impossible for ‘each and every
element of the claimed invention’ to be ‘arranged as in the claim under
review’” (Reply Br. 16). The Decision on Petition did not find the citation
to the rotatable mirror option for Figure 56 to be an “alternative basis” for
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as asserted by Appellants (Reply Br. 17),
but, rather, concluded that
the mentioning of Figs. 42A-C and the relevant text describing
Fig. 56 in Section C.2 of the examiner’s answer is restating the
reasoning of the rejection in a different way for clarification
purpose. The section merely directs the appellant’s attention to
the relevant text discussing all available options for the
embodiment represented by Fig. 56, which has been relied upon
in the final Office action.
Decision on Petition 2.
Because Appellants rely on the same arguments made with respect to
claim 1 for claims 7 and 15 (App. Br. 12), we also find that Appellants have
not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and
15 as anticipated by Kudo.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1,7, and 15 as anticipated by Kudo.
Anticipation by Lobb
The Examiner determines that Fobb discloses the subject matter of
claims 2 and 21 for the reasons stated on pages 7—8 of the Final Action.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 2 because “[t]he Office has improperly read into Appellant’s
11
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
claim 2 a limitation that does not exist in the claim” specifically “claim 2
does not recite that the intermediate image must be between the first and
second lens groups for the second magnification” (App. Br. 14). Appellants
contend that “the Office has not provided a reasoned explanation as to why
Appellant’s recited word ‘intermediate’ must be interpreted to mean
intermediate between something less than the entire optical path . . . such as
between the first lens group (e.g., zoom lens 52 of Lobb) and the second lens
group (e.g., optical relays 12 of Lobb) for the recited second magnification
of the image.” Id. at 15. It is Appellants’ position that claim 2 is not
anticipated by Lobb because “[t]he image at plane 86a of Lobb is
intermediate between the object to be reproduced and the magnified
reproduction of the image.” Id. Appellants additionally argue with respect
to Lobb Figure 4 that zoom lens 52 (the first lens group) and optical relays
12 (the second lens group) are not configured to form an image at plane 92
“without the cooperation of other components, such as prism 81” and,
therefore, Lobb does not disclose “a first lens group and a second lens group
configured to form an image” as required by claims 2 and 21. Id. at 16.
The Examiner responds that “claim 2 requires that the intermediate
image must be formed between the first and second lens groups for the first
magnification” based on its antecedent recitation in claim 2 “the lens system
is further configured to form an intermediate image between the first lens
group and the second lens group at the first magnification” which provides
antecedent support for “the intermediate image.” Ans. 7—8. The Examiner
further responds that the recitation in claim 2 “not to form the intermediate
image at the second magnification” is a negative limitation that is entitled to
the narrowest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. Id.
12
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
at 8. The Examiner explains that, because the antecedent basis for
“intermediate image” in claim 2 is “an intermediate image between the first
lens group and the second lens group,” the narrowest reasonable
interpretation of “not to form the intermediate image at the second
magnification” is that “the intermediate image is not formed between the
first lens group and the second lens group for the second magnification.” Id.
The Examiner finds that the intermediate image disclosed by Lobb:
is not formed between the first lens group and the second lens
group for the second magnification because Lobb discloses in
FIG. 7 and 8 that an image at image plane 86, corresponding to
the recited intermediate image, is formed between zoom lens 52,
corresponding to the recited first lens group, and optical relay 12,
corresponding to the recited second lens group, in the wide field
angle of FIG. 7, corresponding to the recited first magnification,
but this image at image plane 86 is not formed between zoom
lens 52 and optical relay 12 in the narrow field angle of FIG. 8,
corresponding to the recited second magnification. Instead, for
the recited second magnification corresponding to Lobb's FIG. 8,
another image at image plane 86a is formed, but the image plane
86a is inside the zoom lens 52 and is not formed between the first
lens group and the second lens group respectively corresponding
to zoom lens 52 and optical relay 12.
Id. at 8—9. Figures 7 and 8 of Lobb are reproduced below:
13
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
Figures 7 and 8 are diagrams of a zoom lens of an endoscope in two
configurations. Lobb 2:56—59.
The Examiner also responds that claim 2 encompasses additional
optical components, such as prism 81 because claim 2 is an open-ended
“comprising” claim that does not require exclusivity of the recited element.
Ans. 9.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend that “[n]ot forming the
intermediate image when forming an image having a second magnification
means that no intermediate image is formed anywhere, under the
circumstance that an image having a second magnification is formed.”
Reply Br. 19. Appellants further assert that the grammatical article “an”
provides the antecedent basis for all subsequent references to the noun
phrase “intermediate image” and “does not provide an antecedent for
referencing anything other than the “intermediate image” including the same
location as that described in relation to the earlier usage. Id. Appellants
provide as an analogy, identifying the same bird that flies from one location
to the next “does not require or imply that all references to the bird,
subsequent to the first reference, are references to the bird at the location it
had with respect to the first reference.” Id. at 20.
Regarding additional optical components in Lobb to form an image
with the lens groups, Appellants assert that claim 2 requires two specific
items are configured to form such an image and that Lobb does not
anticipate claim 2 because it does not identically disclose this arrangement.”
Id. at 22.
14
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
reversibly erred in finding that Lobb anticipates claim 2 for the reasons
stated by the Examiner. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants assert that an “intermediate image” as recited in claim 2
means an image “anywhere” (Reply Br. 19) or anywhere on “the entire
optical path” (App. Br. 15). The problem with Appellants’ argument is that
Appellants do not direct us to any support for such a definition of the term
“intermediate image.” In the Appeal Brief, Appellants direct us to item 70
in Figures la—3b as providing a representative embodiment of claim 2. App.
Br. 4. In each of Figures la, 2a, and 3a, intermediate image 70 is between
first lens 10 and second lens 20. Appellants also direct us to page 6, line 25
to page 7, line 12 of the Specification which portion states, in pertinent part,
“[a]t the second magnification, as shown in Figure lb, the lens system 100
images a target from close proximity, without forming any intermediate
image between the first lens group 10 and the second lens group 20.” Spec.
6:31-7:1.
We do not find helpful Appellants’ analogy of identifying an
intermediate image to identifying the same flying bird without reference to
its prior location (Reply Br. 19—20). While the bird in Appellants’ analogy
is “the same bird” regardless of its location {id. at 20), the intermediate
image is not shown to be the same image regardless of its location.
Moreover, the Examiner’s construction of intermediate image as it is used in
claim 2 is informed by the context of the claim itself, which describes the
location of an intermediate image when it is present or formed at the first
magnification as being “between the first lens group and the second lens
group.” Ans. 8. We are not persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in
15
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
construing claim 2 such that the claim is anticipated by Lobb. See Phillips v.
AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enbanc) (“[T]he claims
themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular
claim terms.”).
Regarding Appellants’ argument that claim 2 exclusively requires two
specific items to form an image and precludes the additional optical
components (prism) of Lobb, Appellants do not sufficiently explain how the
recited “a first lens group and a second lens group configured to form an
image” excludes additional components in the device from participating in
the formation of an image. Appellants do not dispute that Lobb’s lens
groups are configured, nor do Appellants assert that an image is formed with
Lobb’s lens groups so configured. Based on the cited record on appeal,
Appellants’ position that Lobb does not anticipate claim 2 because Lobb’s
lens groups are not configured to form an image without the cooperation of
other optical components requires importing additional limitations from
Appellants’ Specification into claim 2. Although the claims are interpreted
in light of the Specification, limitations from the specification are not read
into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Because these additional limitations Appellants seek to add do not appear in
claim 2, they cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self 671 F.2d at
1348 (CCPA 1982).
Appellants rely upon the same arguments for both claims 2 and 21.
App. Br. 16. Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not identified a
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 as anticipated by
Lobb for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 2.
16
Appeal 2016-008203
Application 12/666,545
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 2 and 21.
DECISION
We affirm all of the Examiner’s stated rejections.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
17