Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
indication values at instants in a later scan period corresponding to the first and the
second instants with the system of Kii, Tanaka, and Hintze because by using the later
scan period instants of the beam spot in comparison to the instants of the reference
positions an accurate correction value can be calculated without the need of sampling
the deflection current every single beam spot position” [final rejection-page 7].
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as, in our
view, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
For all the many words and twists and turns used by the examiner to explain how
the instant claimed subject matter is deemed obvious over the combinations of
references, and the reliance on Official notice, it appears to us that the examiner’s
rationale is really based on hindsight.
Each of the claims on appeal requires the limitation that the “spot position
indication signal is independent of a width of the scan or the number of scanning lines.”
The examiner’s rationale is unconvincing as to where any one of the applied references
discloses or suggests that a spot position indication signal is “independent” of a width of
the scan or the number of scanning lines. It appears that the examiner relies on Kii for
this teaching or suggestion but it is clear that Kii does not, in fact, teach this limitation.
As appellant points out, at pages 4-6 of the brief, Kii generates a correction
waveform for digital convergence or digital focusing wherein a correction waveform is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007