Appeal No. 1999-0323 Page 3
Application No. 08/079,504
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a method for the
high-speed, high-resolution, 3-D imaging of an object at a
vision station. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claims 43 and 44, which
appear in Appendix I to the appellants' brief.
Claims 43 and 44 stand rejected as being improper reissue
claims which attempt to recapture subject matter deliberately
canceled from the parent application in order to obtain
allowance.2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
23, mailed April 1, 1997), the advisory action (Paper No. 29,
mailed August 26, 1997), and the examiner's answer (Paper No.
33, mailed February 17, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants'
2We assume that this rejection was made under the
provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 251.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007