Appeal No. 1997-1201
Application No. 08/200,616
Appellants argue that “[t]he present invention includes means for determining the
position of the leads through the calibration marks and images of the first and second
sides.” (See brief at page 5.) We disagree with appellants. The language of the
independent claims does not set forth a “means for determining the position of leads” as
appellants argue. This argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that:
The present invention provides a distinct and sharp image of a lead
outline without requiring a device to be rotated so as to present both sides of
the device, and instead provides both sides of the device simultaneously.
None of the applied prior art references could achieve this important
advantage.
See brief at page 5. Again, this argument is directed to the individual references and is
therefore not persuasive.
Appellants generally argue that the combination of references does not teach or
suggest the claimed limitation to “the optical system for combining the first and second
images of the first and second sides into one video display.” (See brief at page 6.)
Appellants have not stated the above argument in the following way, but we note that the
independent claims require that the first image and the second image each contain a view
of both the track, which includes calibration marks, and the leads. We agree with
appellants that the prior art references do not teach or suggest the invention as claimed.
Furthermore, the examiner has not shown how or why the prior art would have taught or
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007