Appeal No. 2001-0864
Application No. 08/841,214
Appellants argue that claim 1 clearly establishes that appellants are using the
intensity of the reflected beam and appellants are using a rate of change in intensity to
detect stains on the surface of a disk which are only evidenced by changes in the
reflectivity of the disk surface. (See brief at page 6.) We agree with appellants that
Womack does not teach or fairly suggest the use of the rate of change of intensity.
Appellants argue that Womack teaches away from the use of the rate of change of
intensity. (See brief at page 6.) We disagree that Womack teaches away from the use
of the rate of change of intensity to detect defects. Rather, we find that Womack
teaches a different way of detecting defects.
Appellants argue that Boehnlein does not teach the use of the rate of change of
intensity to detect defects and teaches away from the use of the rate of change of
intensity to detect defects. As above, we agree with appellants that Boehnlein does not
teach or fairly suggest the use of the rate of change of intensity. We disagree that
Boehnlein teaches away from the use of the rate of change of intensity to detect
defects. Rather, we find that Boehnlein teaches a different way of detecting defects.
Appellants argue that the combination of Womack and Boehnlein would not teach of
fairly suggest the use of the rate of change of intensity to detect defects. (See brief at
page 7.) We agree with appellants.
Appellants argue that Bou-Ghannam is applied for its teaching of storing defect
information and teaches the use of interferometry instead of intensity of the reflected
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007