Appeal No. 2000-1414
Application No. 08/840,351
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cuthbert in view of Kato further in view of
Taylor. Claims 6, 14, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cuthbert in view of Kato further in view of Taylor and Hellstrom.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 12, mailed March 11, 1999) and the examiner's answer (Paper No.
16, mailed Mar. 1, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to appellants' brief (Paper No. 15, filed Sep. 16, 1999) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that the examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to independent claim 1. The examiner maintains that the
teachings of Cuthbert teach the use of a first laser beam along a first path. This beam
is scanned across at least a portion of the planar surface and passes back
through the optical system, reflected off the rotating mirror and passes to a detector.
The examiner maintains that Cuthbert does not specifically recite a telecentric lens, but
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007