Appeal No. 1998-1695
Application No. 08/421,309
upon two definite points rather than using diffraction of reflected light as taught by
Kobayashi. Therefore, we agree with appellants that the examiner has not set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2, 10, and 11
contain similar limitations, and we cannot sustain the rejection of these claims, nor the
rejection of dependent claims 3-9, 12, and 13.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007