Appeal No. 96-4194
Application 08/239,732
Everroad with an automatic inspection system for the advantage
of rapid and reliable inspection, and to avoid eye fatigue on
the part of the human observer (Answer, pages 3, 5 and 6).
Although West uses optical elements between the laser 11 and
the tin plate strip 10, Merlen recognizes that the laser beam
can be directed onto the scanned surface without the
intervening optics. For the advantage of a simpler scanning
system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to replace the scanner of West with the much simpler
scanning system disclosed by Merlen (Answer, pages 3 and 6).
We are also in agreement with the examiner that the choice of
a plurality of detectors as disclosed by West in the form of a
plurality of perspec light guides 22 (Figure 1), or a single
detector as disclosed by Merlen in the form of a pickup
receiver 36 (Figure 2) depends upon "desired extent of the
detection area, cost, and desired resolution" (Answer, pages 3
and 4).
In view of the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 7 and 9 is sustained. The obviousness rejection of
claims 8 and 11 is likewise sustained because of appellants’
grouping of the claims (Brief, page 4).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007