Appeal No. 1997-3969
Application No. 08/175,052
created by the other subapertures. Although the working
images may interact at the surface of the workpiece, the
working images per se as they leave the subapertures 52 and 54
are only a function of what image is contained in each of the
subapertures. Since the working image leaving any subaperture
52 or 54 in Haines is a function only of what is contained
within each subaperture 52 or 54 of the plate 50, the working
images are independent as recited in claim 1.
Appellants also argue that the applied prior art does
not teach the step of dividing the working area into
contiguous polygonal subapertures. We agree with the
examiner, however, that the plate 50 in Haines is clearly a
working area which has been divided into a plurality of
contiguous polygonal subapertures shown as 52 or 54 in Haines.
Since these are the only arguments presented by appellants in
their brief, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as set forth
by the examiner.
With respect to the rejection of claims 2-7 and 18-25
based on Akkapeddi and Haines, the examiner has explained how
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007