Appeal No. 2000-1414
Application No. 08/840,351
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a telecentric
lens. (See final rejection at page 2.) While appellants note that Cuthbert does not
specifically mention a telecentric lens, appellants do not provide any specific argument
to rebut the examiner’s position . Therefore, we accept the examiner’s position.
The examiner maintains that “Cuthbert clearly discloses the instant claimed
arrangement in which the secularly [sic, specularly] reflected beam is detected.” The
examiner maintains that Kato teaches a similar system as Cuthbert, but uses either of
the scattered or reflected beams or a combination of both to detect defects in an object.
The examiner further maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to employ the teaching of Kato with respect to the use of the reflected beam in
the system of Cuthbert. (See final rejection at page 3.) We agree with the examiner.
We note that appellants present arguments are directed to more specific claim 9
rather than to the broader claim 1. Therefore, we will address appellants’ arguments as
they apply to independent claim 1. Appellants argue that Cuthbert teaches away from
the use of the reflected beam and the use of the light scattered from the defect to
identify the defect. (See brief at pages 6-8.) We disagree with appellants. Here, we
note that the system and defects taught by Cuthbert at that time would have been of an
order greater than that at the time to appellants’ invention. As technology and
knowledge in the relevant art advances as taught by Kato, the recognition that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007