Appeal No. 97-1631 Page 6
Application No. 08/245,267
Badgley or Abe Fig. 6(A)) [sic].” (Examiner’s Answer at 2.)
Second, he alleges, “[t]he Grid or ‘Grating’ or [sic]
Guthmueller provides synchronization information as does the
secondary art coding.” (Id.) Third, the examiner states,
“[t]he ‘method’ of claim 1 and subject [sic] to the same
rejection.” (Id. at 3.) The examiner’s response to the
appellant’s arguments is more laconic and less helpful than
his rejection. He remarks, “[a]ppellant’s arguendo [sic] is
essentially meaningless since it either ignores or
misconstrues the teachings of the above prior art.”
(Examiner’s Answer at 3.)
We find that neither Guthmueller, Abe, nor Badgley, alone
or in combination, teaches or suggests the claimed invention.
We will address the failure of the references seriatim.
Regarding the Guthmueller reference, we agree with the
appellant that the reference “lacks any teaching or suggestion
of a masking means which carries a coded symbol ....” (Appeal
Br. at 4.) Independent claim 1 specifies inter alia “masking
means positioned in the beam intermediate the scanning means
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007