Appeal No. 2000-1414
Application No. 08/840,351
appellants argue that independent claim 9 recites a "means supporting the object . . ."
Here, we find that the examiner has neither addressed this limitation in the final
rejection nor in the examiner's answer. Since the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim
9, independent claim 16 and dependent claim 2 and claims 10-14 and 17-20 which are
dependent therefrom.
With respect to independent claim 21, the examiner maintains that the
combination of Cuthbert, Kato and Talyor are relied upon in the rejection, yet
independent claim 21 is more similar to independent claim 1 than to independent claims
9 and 16. Furthermore, we find no specific arguments directed to independent claim
21, therefore we will group independent claim 21 with independent claim 1 since we find
that the teachings of Taylor are not needed to reach the limitations of independent
claim 21. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 21 and
dependent claims 22-24 since no arguments thereto have been presented.
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 25, appellants argue that the samples of
Hellstrom does not reflect the scanning beam as recited in the claims. (See brief at
page 12.) Appellants argue that Hellstrom teaches at col. 6 that the samples are
selected to define the appropriate characteristics for the calibration of the optical
scanning system. The examiner maintains that with a wafer, a mirror-like surface would
have been an appropriate surface. (See answer at page 10.) Appellants argue that
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007