Appeal 2007-1570
Application 10/646,720
scanning the second probe over a measured surface to produce
successive measured values, such that a size of an opening of the
elongated nozzle allows for an entire area of the measured surface
adjacent the second probe during the scanning to be measured by
substantially eliminating low sensitivity areas;
(Br. 13-14; see also claim 19).
In response, we find Appellant has failed to comply with the
requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) by merely reciting the language of the
claim and asserting that such language is not taught by the reference(s). We
further note that a statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner
that the cited references teach and/or suggest the argued claim limitations.
Regarding eliminating low sensitivity areas, we note the Examiner has
pointed out that Appellant discloses this advantage flows from either
matching the orifice footprint to the surface features or to the elongated
dimensions of the nozzles (Answer 3; Specification ¶¶ 48, 23). We note that
Carraras teaches a jet (i.e., an orifice) having a shape homothetic to that of
the deposit to be measured (col. 4, ll. 6-8). Carraras specifically teaches jets
6 and 7 each have rectangular (i.e., elongated) sections (col. 4, ll. 57-58). We
further note that Zumbach teaches an elongated nozzle (col. 8, ll. 49-51, i.e.,
“sensing slit 34 extending longitudinally in the air gap 31, this sensing
aperture being connected to a differential pressure meter as shown at 72 in
FIGS. 7 and 8.”). We find that successively scanning a measurement surface
to cover an entire area (i.e., a topology) is merely a predictable variation
well within the level of knowledge of a person of ordinary skill. We have
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013