Appeal No. 1998-2753
Application No. 08/740,887
of ordinary skill in the art to replace the imaging system
disclosed by Pinson with one that responds to the
predetermined hyperspectral signature of a target. It would
appear that the only suggestion for doing so is provided by
the luxury of the hindsight accorded one who first viewed the
appellants’ disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper
basis for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See, for
example, In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
SUMMARY
The combined teachings of Pinson and each of the three
secondary references fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter of the
appellants’ claims. This being the case:
None of the rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007