Appeal No. 00-0833
Application 08/985,676
14. The reference distance between the templates is
compared with the new distance between the templates, thus
providing a determination of the strain of the object
(Kanduth, column 7, lines 52-57).
The examiner’s position
15. The examiner alleges that Kanduth teaches a known
mark pattern on an object surface, stating that “Kanduth et
al. disclose ... creating a mark pattern of a known fixed
distance on the object”, citing to column 5, lines 48-49 of
Kanduth. (Answer at 3).
16. The examiner states in its answer that “Kanduth et
al. clearly indicate the provision of known fixed distance,
and as a result a known marking.” (Answer at 4).
B. Discussion
The rejections of the claims on appeal cannot be
sustained. A reversal of the rejection on appeal should not
be construed as an affirmative indication that the appellants’
claims are patentable over prior art. We address only the
positions and rationale as set forth by the examiner and on
which the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal is
based.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007