Appeal No. 2002-1732
Application No. 09/338,238
adjustments which direct the process toward alignment of the
elements along the reference path.
It is the examiner’s position that since Raney discloses a
conventional computer, at column 10, line 20, “it can only work
in a step-wise manner to do the image analysis, since that is how
conventional computers work” (answer-page 7).
Appellants do not argue the “step-wise manner” part of the
examiner’s explanation but only that Raney does not disclose what
role the computer in Raney plays and that the reference does not
teach image analysis by the computer. The sole argument made by
appellants in this regard is not persuasive since Raney teaches,
for example, at column 10, lines 35-36, that “[t]hese images are
compared with reference image data stored in the controller...”.
Since it is safe to assume that this comparison is not made
manually, it would have been clear to an artisan that the
computer is employed in the comparison. Accordingly, contrary to
appellants’ assertion, Raney does suggest image analysis by the
computer. However, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
24-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the examiner has not
indicated where, in the applied references, there is a suggestion
of assisting a system operator in making adjustments. The
-13-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007