Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
independent claims 1 and 6 on appeal of projecting a plurality of
lines of light of different intensities across the edges.
We also reverse the examiner's second stated rejection of
dependent claims 2-5, 7-9 and 15. If we were to agree with the
examiner's view that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
have combined appellants' admitted prior art with the teachings
and suggestions of Iwai and Cline as just outlined, we not only
would have affirmed the rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 7-9
and 15 but also would have indicated the obviousness of the
subject matter of their parent independent claims 1 and 6 on
appeal.
The examiner's reliance upon the paragraph bridging
specification pages 6 and 7 on appeal is misplaced. To the
extent this discussion may be an accurate characterization of
what the state of the art was, particularly with respect to
identifying a known corporation that markets a device capable of
projecting a plurality of lines of light having different
intensities, we conclude that it would not have been obvious to
the artisan on the basis of the information provided us according
to the noted portion relied upon by the examiner coupled with the
examiner's reasoning to have considered such teachings and
suggestions as obvious to combine by the artisan within 35 U.S.C.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007