Appeal No. 2002-1732
Application No. 09/338,238
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Merely because the reference
line (the edge of the web) in Gilbert and Toensing is parallel to
the centerline of the manufacturing line does not, in and of
itself, make it obvious to have the reference line represent a
centerline of the manufacturing line. The examiner has pointed
to no teaching in the references which would have led the artisan
to make such a modification nor is there any evidence of record
that it would have been obvious to do so.
With regard to claims 22 and 23, appellants argue that no
reference teaches the storing of a full digitized visual image in
permanent memory. The examiner points to column 10, lines 12-49
of Raney.
The portion of Raney identified by the examiner teaches that
cameras are used to capture images and that those images are
compared with reference image data. Appellants argue that since
the reference is silent as to “digitized” images, and one cannot
assume that all cameras are digital cameras, this silence is
fatal to the examiner’s argument. We disagree.
The rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 103, not 35 U.S.C. § 102,
so each and every claimed element need not be specifically
disclosed by the reference. In our view, not only would it have
been equally obvious to employ either a digital camera or a
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007