Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
Iwai and Cline for the reasons just indicated. As such, the
subject matter of independent claims 10 and 12 would have been
unpatentable within 35 U.S.C. § 103.
It is noted that appellants' arguments with respect to this
rejection at pages 12-14 of the principal brief on appeal do not
argue the patentability of independent claims 10 and 12 on
appeal, only the subject matter of dependent claims 11 and 16.
Even though we recognize that Tsunefuji is silent with respect to
the teaching of the projection of a plurality of lines of light
across the edges of an object to be inspected, we have noted
earlier that this feature is taught in the combined teachings of
Iwai and Cline. Because the examiner-noted teachings at column 2
of Tsunefuji indicate that it was known in the art to have
automatic, adjustable exposure mechanisms in cameras, the feature
of controlling the shutter speed of the camera in dependent
claims 11 and 16 on appeal as recited in the alternative with
other features is clearly met according to the teachings relied
upon by the examiner as we noted in the previous paragraph.
We are likewise unpersuaded by appellants' arguments in the
paragraph bridging pages 13 and 14 of the principal brief on
appeal that there is not sufficient suggestion or motivation for
the combination of the three references. We do not agree with
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007