Appeal No. 97-3097
Application 08/030,488
apparatus, when Waters is not concerned with concavity of the
diaphragm?
Moreover, we find no disclosure in any of these
references which would teach one of ordinary skill to use a
portion of the container adjacent the diaphragm as a
reference, as recited in claims 1 and 12. The examiner
asserts that this would have been obvious (answer, page 11),
but in support of this assertion does not point to any
evidence of doing so with a laser distance measuring system.
The portion of Bellio cited (column 1, lines 13 to 16)
concerns a prior art system using a dial indicator, and not to
an optical system.
The rejection of claims 1 and 12, and of claims 3, 5, 6,
8 and 15 dependent thereon, will not be sustained. Since the
Wade, Ohtake, Storar and Bereziat references do not supply the
deficiencies noted with regard to the rejection of claims 1
and 12, the rejections of claims 7, 9 to 11, 13 and 14 will
likewise not be sustained.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007