Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
Hintze nor Tanaka provides for this deficiency. So, appellant does argue the
combination rather than individual references since, if no individual reference teaches
or suggests a claimed limitation, how can it be that the combination of these references
would magically teach or suggest the limitation?
Since an important limitation of the claims is not taught or suggested by the
applied references, the examiner has not met his burden of establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and we will not sustain the rejections of the
claims.
Moreover, the instant claims also specifically recite the apparatus and steps
taken in order to achieve the independence of the spot position indication signal from
the width of the scan or the number of scanning lines. That is, the measurement of first
and second instances when position information has first and second values and
calculation, in a later scan period, of the spot position indication signal as a linear
function in time, wherein the spot position indication signal has predetermined position
indication values in this later scan period, results in the spot position indication signal
being independent of a width of the scan or the number of scanning lines.
While the examiner agrees that Kii does not disclose these limitations regarding
the measurement of first and second instances and calculating the spot position
indication signal wherein the means has predetermined position indication values at
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007