Appeal No. 1998-0628
Application 08/197,100
of ordinary skill in the testing art would have recognized
that whether or not the whole object can be imaged depends on
the size and shape of the object and on the type of imaging
device (i.e., an array of photocells can be arranged around an
object while a Vidicon tube cannot because it is flat).
It is argued that Wagner requires two different
illuminations and subsequent digital processing in order to
detect the differences between the two images produced by the
illuminations (Br7-8).
This is true. However, claim 30 does not positively
recite what image processing is done and does not exclude the
processing discussed in Wagner.
Appellants argue (Br8):
Furthermore, unobviousness may reside in the discovery of
the problem, the solution of which employs a combination
of old elements. In re Sponnoble, (CCPA 1969) 405 F2d
578, 160 USPQ 237. None of the cited references
recognize the problems of prior contact lens inspection
art, namely, the need to bring inspection time to an
absolute minimum. This proposition is supported by the
fact that Schmalfuss '139 does not suggest dark field
illumination and, perhaps more importantly, suggests the
slow process of recording thousands of individual points
by dot scanning. Neither Wagner '442 nor Remy '806 deal
with inspection of optical components, and therefore,
could not recognize the problems inherent in the
stringent quality requirements and production cycle times
of contact lenses. [Emphasis in original.]
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007