Appeal 2007-1710
Application 10/098,016
provide real-time data to a user for faster assimilation of
the data
We concur with the Examiner’s reasoning. As discussed in our
finding of facts, Nishio discusses monitoring position of the coupled-in
beam but does not discuss an output of the monitoring system. Fact 8.
Edwards teaches that one method known to observe the output of a
monitoring system is by use of a display. Fact 13. We do not consider the
Examiner’s rejection to be in error because there is no cite to a specific
passage of text in the reference that provides a motivation to combine the
references. The Supreme Court has recently dismissed confining the
obviousness analysis to such a formalistic conception (see above discussion
of KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc). Rather, we consider the Examiner to have
established that using a display in the system of Nishio to be a predictable
variation. Further, that Edwards’s system may be directed to using an
optical system in a different environment is of no consequence as one skilled
in the art would recognize the use of a display would solve the same
problem (provide information to a user) and as such provide a predictable
result. Thus, Appellants’ arguments have not convinced us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 13. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 13 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Nishio in view of Edwards.
OTHER ISSUES
On page 6 of the Brief, Appellants assert that the drawing objections
are improper and should be withdrawn. This relates to a petitionable issue
and not an appealable issue. See In re Schneider, 481 F.2d 1350, 1356-57,
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013