Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
line is projected into the scanning area, and that an image is
formed on the surface of the object. These limitations are
found in the recitation of “means for projecting at least one
line onto a scanning area” and “means for detecting an image
formed on a
surface of the log.” Further, we find that the scope of
claims
2 through 8 contains this limitation as claims 2 through 8 are
all ultimately dependent upon Claim 1.
As also stated above, we find that Olsson fails to
disclose projecting lines onto the surface of the log.
Similarly, we find that Olsson fails to provide a suggestion
to project lines onto the surface of the log. We find that
Olsson specifically states that the width of the log is
scanned, Column 7, lines
66 through 68. We find that Olsson's scanning cameras observe
the diameter of the log as they transverse the log and that as
such Olsson does not provide a suggestion to project a line
onto the surface of the log. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the rejection of Claims 2 though 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
For the foregoing reasons we affirm the Examiner’s
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007