Appeal 2007-1570
Application 10/646,720
We further disagree with Appellant’s fourth argument that the
combinations proffered by the Examiner would make Barada unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose and/or change Barada’s principle of operation. In
particular, we note that the Examiner has merely relied on Carraras and
Zumbach for their respective teachings and/or suggestions of elongated or
rectangular nozzles (see Answer 3-5; see also footnote 1 supra). We find
the Examiner’s proffered combinations would have enhanced Barada by
providing additional measurement capabilities (e.g., over a surface area or
topology).
Thus, when we take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed, we conclude the
Examiner has articulated an adequate reasoning with a rational underpinning
that reasonably supports the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Independent claim 19 (elements)
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 19 as
being unpatentable over Barada in view of Carraras as well as the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 as being unpatentable over Barada in view
of Zumbach.
Appellant merely asserts the following language of claim 19 is not
taught nor suggested by the applied references:
scanning the first probe over a reference surface to produce
successive reference values, such that a size of an opening of the
elongated nozzle allows for an entire area of the reference surface
adjacent the first probe during the scanning to be measured by
substantially eliminating low sensitivity areas;
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013