Appeal No. 2000-1414
Application No. 08/840,351
reflected beam may be used in tracking and in the detection of defects on the surface
of an object.
Appellants argue that reflected light is not interchangeable with scattered light.
(See brief at pages 7-8.) We agree with appellants, but note that the examiner has
used the teachings of Kato to teach the additional use of more recent teaching of the
use of the reflected beam in addition to the use of scattered light from the defect.
Appellants argue that “stains” on the surface do not scatter light and the system of
Cuthbert would not detect them. We find no support in the language of claim 1 to
support this argument. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the system of Kato differs in a great many respects from
that taught by Cuthbert. We agree with appellants, but note that Kato teaches that
various uses of the reflected beam and the scattered beam may be implemented in
order to detect defects in a planar surface. Furthermore, in our view, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that various factors would have been
involved in determining what portion of the beam or scattered light would have been
desirable to use. Such factors would have been the surface to be evaluated along with
the type and relative size of the defects. Here in independent claim 1, any defect in a
planar surface of any object may be detected. In light of the general breadth of the
claim, we do not find the teachings of Cuthbert to teach away from the use of the
reflected beam for all defect detection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007