Appeal No. 1998-1803
Application 08/409,188
position which is explained in detail in the brief. The
examiner has not responded to any of appellant’s pertinent
arguments in the brief, but instead, the examiner has simply
repeated erroneous positions held from the start of
prosecution in this application. The claims relate to a
method and apparatus for projecting an identifying image onto
previously cut material pieces to enable identification and
sorting for subsequent processing. Neither Campbell nor
Gerber relates to the identification of previously cut pieces.
Appellant is also correct that there is nothing to be gained
by projecting the templates of Campbell onto the material
itself. The templates would still be used only to determine
where to cut the sheet material and would not satisfy the
claim recitations of projecting identifying information onto
material parts previously cut from sheet material.
Since each of the independent claims recites limitations
which are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art, we
do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of any of claims 1-21
based on the prior art applied by the examiner. Therefore,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007