Appeal No. 2002-1732
Application No. 09/338,238
There is no indication that the computer in Raney defines any
such machine direction reference path. As a matter of fact, the
examiner employs Gilbert for the teaching of the claimed
reference path, so there would be no reason for Raney to store
such information in any event.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 68
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claims 17 and 56, appellants contend that no
reference teaches or suggests a control system providing visual
cues identifying elements that are outside acceptable ranges.
The examiner’s view is that all of the cited references include
visual cues, arguing that in Gilbert and Toensing, the webs
themselves provide visual cues to the photocells to indicate if
the webs are in proper alignment, and that in Raney and
Weyenberg, the elements that the cameras make images of provide
visual cues.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 56 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 because the claims require the visual display
itself to provide visual cues. It is not enough to say that the
webs of Gilbert and Toensing or the workpieces of Raney or
Weyerberg provide, broadly, “visual cues” because these are not
equivalent to a visual display providing such visual cues.
-16-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007