Appeal No. 2003-0583
Application No. 09/270,688
OPINION
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejections and arguments of Appellants and
the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. However,
we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-16 and
20-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellants argue that Yanagida does not teach "at least one
scanning station for supporting a foot to be measured, the at
least one scanning station including at least one movable laser
scanning unit for determining coordinates of an undersurface of
the foot by directing at least one line of laser light along the
undersurface" as recited in Appellants' claims 13. See page 5 of
the brief. Appellants further emphasize that Yanagida does not
teach "at least one laser scanning station having at least one
movable scanning unit" as recited in Appellants' claim 13. See
page 3 of the reply brief. In particular, Appellants point out
that Yanagida's device uses cameras 12a and 12b and are not
movable.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007