Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
It is thus apparent to us that the artisan would have
considered the teachings and suggestions of Iwai and Cline to be
properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103 as we have explained.
However, the resulting combination yields only light that is
projected along a plurality of lines, but not yielding a
projected plurality of lines of light having different
intensities as projected as required by independent claims 1 and
6 on appeal. Because the combination of Cline and Iwai does not
teach or suggest the projection of different intensities or
varying intensities of light, we must reverse the rejection of
these independent claims.
It is noted, however, that the resulting combination of Iwai
and Cline yields no more than what appellants have already
admitted to be in the prior art in the discussion bridging
specification pages 1 and 2 as filed. There it is indicated that
it was known in the art to project a line pattern of constant
intensity transversely across the edges. This state of the art
was also indicated at specification page 4, lines 22-24 where it
was indicated that it was known to project a number of lines of
light transversely across the edges. Appellants' disclosed and
claimed contribution in the art is properly reflected in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007