Appeal No. 1998-0628
Application 08/197,100
components" as disclosed in Schmalfuss because Wagner
discloses that the apparatus can be used for optical surfaces.
Appellants argue that there is no suggestion to combine
the beer bottle inspection teachings of Remy or the
photolithographic mask inspection teachings of Wagner with
Schmalfuss (Br5).
While we agree that there is no suggestion to combine the
references in the manner stated by the Examiner, we conclude
that there is a suggestion to combine in the manner discussed
supra.
Appellants argue that a person of ordinary skill in the
opthalmic lens art would not have looked to the beer bottle
inspection art of Remy or the photolithographic-related
process of Wagner (Br5).
We disagree. Remy and Wagner are at least within the
prior art related to the inventors' problem of detecting and
measuring defects in transparent objects and, so, are
analogous prior art.
It is argued that combining Schmalfuss with any reference
which teaches another method of inspection destroys the
teachings of Schmalfuss (Br5).
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007