Appeal No. 00-0833
Application 08/985,676
random area to be photographed and uses a prism for dividing
the image of the surface into two separate images. In both
embodiments, the images are separated at a known distance.
This is accomplished by either orienting the two cameras at a
fixed distance, or orienting a prism at the end of a single
camera such that the image viewed by the camera is split into
two images at a known distance. (Finding 9).
This is in contrast to the claimed invention which
requires taking an image of (photographing) the known mark
pattern created on the object. The claimed invention requires
taking an image of (photographing) a specific image (the mark
pattern), while Kanduth describes photographing random areas
of an object.
The examiner provides no further explanation regarding
the known mark pattern on the object. Based on the record
before us, the examiner has failed to establish that there is
a teaching, suggestion or motivation in Kanduth to create and
photograph a known mark pattern on an object as claimed by the
appellants.
Accordingly, we will reverse the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
103 over Kanduth.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007