Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
§ 103 to the additional teachings and suggestions of Iwai and
Cline. On the basis of their teachings and suggestions alone,
there appears to us to have been no reason to have modified
the combination of Iwai and Cline resulting from them to use
plural lines of light having different light intensities since
the combined system would have apparently performed well to have
provided a satisfactory basis of determining the brightness of
the scattered or reflected radiation from the weld bead. The
paragraph bridging specification pages 6 and 7 does not
indicate any teachings or suggestions to us that would have
lead the artisan to have modified the combined teachings of
Iwai and Cline to have used instead a light source projecting a
plurality of lines of light having different light intensities.
We turn last to the third stated rejection of claims 10-14
and 16 as being obvious over the combined teachings and
suggestions of Iwai and Cline, further in view of Tsunefuji. The
rejection of independent claims 13 and 14 must be reversed for
two reasons. As noted earlier, the projector of these claims
must be capable of having controllable light intensity such that
the intensity is modified according to the evaluation of the
image of the lines. It is noted at page 9 of the answer that
the examiner relies upon Cline to teach this feature. In our
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007