Appeal No. 96-2953
Application 08/258,565
[N]either Barber et al. nor Weyrauch teach
or suggest the specifically recited
relation-ships of claim 10 with regard to
the angle of the beam relative to a normal
to the rotary plate and depending upon the
wavelength of the light source and the
pitch of the rotary plate.... (Brief at
page 15.)
Looking at claim 10 we see, “said beam having an
angle 2 relative to a normal to said rotary plate so that
sin(2)=±8/p”. The Examiner responds with the same explanation
used with respect to Barber as applied to claims 1, 6 and 26,
i.e.,
The examiner has used a[n] inherent
statement, not an obviousness statement,
therefore an obvious argument is
irrelevant. Secondly, the examiner feels
that a skilled artisan would find this
inherent in the reference and the applicant
has failed to prove, with evidence and not
conclusionary statements, that this is an
unexpected result since it has been held
that discovering an optimum value of a
result effective variable involves only
routine skill in the art. (Answer at pages
4 and 5 referred back to at page 6.)
As discussed above, we do not find any evidence that
the claimed beam angle is inherent or the subject of mere
optimization in Barber. This deficiency is not cured by
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007