Appeal No. 1998-0628
Application 08/197,100
references as a whole would have suggested the obviousness of
the broad claim 30.
The difference between Remy and the subject matter of
claim 30 is that Remy does not test "transparent optical
components." However, one of ordinary skill in the art,
seeking a solution to the problem of detecting defects in the
surface of transparent optical components would have looked to
the general field of testing the surfaces of transparent
objects for a solution and found Remy. It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the
dark-field illumination and imaging apparatus of Remy to the
testing of "optical components" as disclosed in Schmalfuss
because Remy discloses that taking an image of an area at one
time eliminates the need to rotate the beam to sequential
spots (col. 2, lines 10-19).
There are no clear differences between Wagner and the
subject matter of claim 30 because Wagner suggests that the
apparatus can be used for the inspection of "optical surfaces"
and because the processing is not recited in claim 30. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply
the testing apparatus of Wagner to the testing of "optical
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007