Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
reversal of independent claims 1 and 6 on appeal, we noted that
this reference does not teach a projector having the capability
of projecting a plurality of lines of light having different
intensities. It is thus also apparent to us from our study of
Tsunefuji that it is also incapable of and does not teach a
projector having a controllable light intensity and then
modifying the intensity of the projector to control it. Thus,
the reference to Tsunefuji is not relied upon by the examiner to
provide the teachings and suggestions of the requirements of
claims 13 and 14 on appeal. As such, the rejection of these
claims must be reversed.
On the other hand, we sustain the rejection of claims 10-12
and 16. As noted earlier in this opinion, independent claims 10
and 12 do not require a plurality of lines of light from a
projector where the lines of light have different intensities,
only the mere projection of a plurality of lines of light across
the edges. By implication then from our study of the combined
teachings and suggestions of Iwai and Cline, this key feature of
independent claims 10 and 12 on appeal is met.
The examiner's limited reliance upon Tsunefuji's teachings
and suggestions is well-taken. The teachings and suggestions of
the background of the invention at columns 1 and 2 of Tsunefuji
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007