Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
Thus, 37 C.F.R. § 1.192 provides that just as the court is not
under any burden to raise and/or consider such issues, this
board is also not under any greater burden. For the forging
reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being unpatentable over Flodin.
We next consider the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over Olsson. We find
that the Examiner has not made a prima facie case.
Appellants argue on page 6 of the brief that Olsson does
not teach that lines are projected onto the surface of the
log. Appellants assert that the lines depicted in Olsson’s
figure
1 are not projected onto the log, but rather are virtual lines
calculated by a control device.
On page 7 of the answer, the Examiner asserts that figure
7 represents both an actual log and a computer model. As
such, the Examiner concludes that “[t]he logs really have
lines on their exteriors and are measured or detected so that
a model may be used to calculate how to process each log
accordingly.”
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007