Appeal No. 2000-1414
Application No. 08/840,351
maintains that the level detector is a threshold detector referenced by a different name.
(See answer at page 9.) We agree with the examiner that the use of differentiators and
rate of change was well known in such circuits. Appellants argue that the examiner
asserts that any known circuit would have been obvious to use in the combination and
that some teaching in a reference would be necessary. (See brief at page 13.) We
disagree with the appellants' statement. The examiner relies upon the teachings of
Cuthbert and maintains that Cuthbert teaches and/or fairly suggests the use of rate of
change, but does not use the same terminology. (See answer at page 9.) Appellants
have not responded to the examiner's clarification. Therefore, appellants’ argument is
not persuasive.
With respect to claim 5, the examiner indicated that this claim would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form. (See answer at page 2.)
With respect to independent claim 9, independent claim 16, and dependent
claim 2, the examiner relies upon the teachings of Taylor to teach and suggest the
inspection of both planar surfaces. (See final rejection at page 4.) Appellants argue
that the system of Taylor is completely different from the systems of Cuthbert and Kato.
(See brief at page 9.) We agree with appellants that the examiner has not provided a
proper analysis of how the teachings of these varied references would have been
combined and has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. Additionally,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007