Appeal No. 2004-0659
Application No. 09/111,978
narrower and germane to the rejection because the prior art
references kept the object and the detector in a fixed
relationship and moved the projected light, thus the same
area of the object always imaged to the same detector at
each different phase of the light as the light moved. Thus
the reissue claims distinguish over the prior art in a manner
germane to the rejection.
Second, appellant argues (Brief, pages 14-15, Reply Brief, page 3, and Request for
Rehearing, page 4) that "maintaining the projected pattern of light and the detector in a
substantially fixed relation to each other," rather than the projector and the detector,
narrows the claims in a manner germane to the original rejection, thereby distinguishing
over the situation in Pannu.
Regarding the imaging of the detector elements onto three detector elements at
first, second, and third phases, respectively, despite appellant's arguments to the contrary,
we find that this limitation does not further narrow patent claim 1. Specifically, claim 1
recited "a plurality of separate detector elements which are substantially uniformly
spaced," which implies that there are at least three detector elements (or the spacing
limitation makes no sense). Further, claim 1 recited that "each of the detector elements
produce [sic] an image having a different phase of the same scanned surface." Thus,
claim 1 included imaging the same surface onto three detector elements, each at a
different phase. Merely stating the limitation a different way does not constitute a
narrowing of the claim. Accordingly, we find no material narrowing regarding the
imaging onto the detector elements at different phases.
As to "maintaining the projected pattern of light and the detector in a substantially
fixed relation to each other," this limitation does not relate to either the velocity of the
object relative to the projector nor to the spacing of the detector elements, the two
limitations that were broadened. Similarly, the imaging limitation discussed supra does
not relate to either of the broadening limitations. Accordingly, "the reissued claims were
not narrowed in any material respect compared with their broadening." Pannu, 59
- 32 -
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007