Appeal No. 2003-0583
Application No. 09/270,688
Garuet-Lempirou fails to teach that the transparent wall is not
digitized and calibration occurs with the transparent plate in
place as required by Appellants' invention. See pages 6 and 7 of
the brief and page 4 of the reply brief.
We note that Appellants' claim 1 recites "scanning the
undersurface of the foot with the at least one laser scanning
unit by directing at least one line of laser light along the
undersurface." We fail to find that this limitation requires
that the transparent wall is not digitized and calibration occurs
with the transparent plate in place. As we pointed out above,
Appellants' claim 1 recites "comprising" which does not preclude
other steps such as taught by Garuet-Lempirou in the method.
Appellants argue that there is no reason or motivation in
the prior art to have the longitudinal pin type foot contour
measurement machine taught by Sundman substituted with the laser
scanning foot contour measurement device taught by Garuet-
Lempirou. See page 8 of the brief and page 5 of the reply brief.
However, during the oral argument, Appellants' representative did
agree that there would have been reasons to make the modification
at the time of the invention.
Furthermore, we find that Garuet-Lempirou teaches their
invention is an application to digitize a human foot, in
1212
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007