Appeal No. 1996-1579
Application 08/250,489
not the surface. Therefore, in the context of the majority of
the teachings in McDonach, the claimed spot may comprise a
laser beam spot on the grating in McDonach.
Therefore, the combined teachings and suggestions of
Lukasiewicz and McDonach do not teach or lead the artisan away
from the presently claimed invention. The presently claimed
invention does not distinguish over, by its own terms, the
subject matter taught or suggested to the artisan from both of
these references. The claimed invention of claim 1 does not
exclude the use of the materials attached to the surface of
the object to be measured in either reference.
Appellant's brief and the request for rehearing make much
more of McDonach than we did in our original opinion in
affirming only the rejection of claim 1 on appeal. We have
properly considered the collective teachings and suggestions
of both references relied upon and have not improperly
considered them from a structural combinability point of view,
which is the essence of appellant's arguments. The substance
of our affirmance of the rejection of claim 1 is contained
between pages 2 through 5 of our original opinion. At page 5,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007