Appeal No. 2002-1732
Application No. 09/338,238
For similar reasons, the rejection of claims 60-67 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained since they also contain
limitations directed to operator interaction.
The rejection of claims 27-33 and 60-67 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is not sustained.
With regard to claim 34, appellants argue that no reference
teaches or suggests using a composite of first and second images
to evaluate any one element of a work piece or web. The examiner
counters only that Raney discloses a plurality of cameras 140,
142 and 143, at column 10, line 12.
Since the examiner has not addressed the issue of composite
images, as claimed, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103
With regard to claim 68, appellants argue that no reference
teaches or suggests defining a reference path in a central
process control apparatus such as disclosed in the instant
specification. In our view, the examiner has reasonably pointed
out that the computer disclosed at column 10, line 20, of Raney
includes a control for the apparatus in its memory.
However, what the examiner does not address is the
requirement of claim 68 that the process control apparatus
defines, in its memory, “a machine direction reference path...”
-15-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007