Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
that Olsson fails to teach that lines are projected onto the
surface of the log. We find that the lines depicted in
Olsson’s Figure 7 are the surface contour lines of the simple
geometric representation of the log and are not lines
projected onto the surface of the log. Accordingly, we find
that Olsson does not anticipate every
limitation of either claim 1 or 9. Therefore, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being unpatentable over Olsson.
We next consider the rejection of claims 2 through 8 and
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson.
On pages 4 and 5 of the answer, the Examiner sets forth
the rejection relying on Olsson and assertions of what is
known in the art.
On pages 7 and 8 of the brief, Appellants reiterate that
Olsson does not teach that lines are projected onto the
surface of the logs.
As stated above, we find that the scope of independent
claims 1 and 9 includes that the projected line forms an image
on the surface of the object. We find that the scope of
independent claim 10 similarly includes that an image of a
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007