Appeal 2006-2959 Application 10/066,277 Independent claim 1 is illustrative and representative of the Appellants’ invention. It reads as follows: 1. A system operable to substantially automatically perform an evaluation of a sample of a material according to an established standard, wherein the system comprises: a microscope operable to magnify the sample; a light source operable to illuminate the sample, wherein the illumination is provided at a grazing angle so as to enhance a contrast between surface features of the sample; a stage associated with the microscope and operable to move and position the sample under the microscope for viewing; an image capturing mechanism operable to capture an image of the sample through the microscope; and a computing device operable to control magnification by the microscope, control illumination by the light source, receive images from the image capturing device, control movement of the stage, and store and execute a computer program operable to substantially automatically conduct an analysis of the image to identify surface features of the sample and determine characteristics of the sample therefrom, and to generate a report setting forth a result of the analysis. Appellants contend that claims 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 23 through 26 and 28 are not anticipated by Esrig.1 Particularly, Appellants contend that Esrig does not fairly teach or suggest automatically analyzing an image to identify surface features of a sample under test in order to determine the 1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants submitted in the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been waived. See 37 § C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013