Appeal No. 2005-0199
Application No. 10/102,574
The examiner has acknowledged (answer, pages 4 and 5) that Watanabe ‘877 fails to
disclose all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and that Takoudis fails to disclose
“determining whether the metal surface is contaminated based on the IR beam as reflected by the
metal surface comprises comparing the IR beam as reflected by the metal surface to a reference
sample, and concluding that the metal surface is contaminated when the IR beam as reflected
thereby deviates from the reference sample by more than a threshold.”
Based upon the examiner’s admission, and our independent review of the teachings of
these references, we must agree with the examiner’s assessment of the lack of teachings in these
references. Although Watanabe ‘490 discloses Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscope surface
inspection using absorption of infrared rays, he describes it as a method rendered impractical
because of the difficulty, complexity, time and expense needed to perform the analysis (page 3,
lines 1 through 6). In any event, Watanabe fails to teach the steps set forth in the claims on
appeal.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 4 through 8 and 11 through 14 is
reversed for failure of the examiner to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007