Appeal No. 1997-2981
Application No. 08/161,304
is, using the mark in Idelsohn, the cut or cuts are made and
the cut pieces of lumber constitute the “production of said
object.”
Appellant’s arguments regarding scanning the mark, the
mark being simply the output of a computer after determination
of a proper cutting location and the mark not actually
containing any information are unpersuasive. Claim 39 does
not preclude the “marking” from being the output of a
computer, nor does the claim require the marking to be
scanned. With regard to containing information, as explained
supra, the mark in Idelsohn certainly does “contain
information” as to where the cut or cuts should be made in
order to produce the object. In accordance with the broad
claim language, it does not matter that it is the position of
the mark in Idelsohn which offers this information rather than
a bar code, as envisioned by appellant.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 39 and 46 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e), it is our view that Pryor also anticipates
the instant claimed invention, as broadly set forth.
Appellant does not dispute that Pryor discloses a method
for electro-optically determining the dimension of part
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007