Appeal No. 1996-1579
Application 08/250,489
It is further noted that the imaging in Figures 3 and 5
of Lukasiewicz appears to be in the context of the structure
10 and not with respect to the surface of the photosensitive
material 12 placed thereupon. In any event, the claim does
not distinguish thereover even if the imaging was with respect
to the surface of the glued photosensitive material 12 to the
underlying surface of the structure 10 to be examined. Column
2, line 15 of McDonach begins a discussion that teaches that
the actual regular surface itself of the object to be examined
may alternatively have therein a 2-dimensional periodic
pattern rather than relying upon the need for attaching the
grating thereto.
In the absence of the surface itself in McDonach
providing the regular 2-dimensional periodic pattern, the
basic teaching in McDonach is that the sensing is with respect
to deformations of the grating. In any event, the teachings
in McDonach are still applicable to the subject matter of
claim 1 on appeal since we emphasize again that the laser
beams illuminate the spot on an object surface to be measured
and that the reflected speckle images are from the spot and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007