Appeal No. 1999-2690
Application 08/720,563
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to independent claim 4, addressed first in the
Answer, the Examiner indicates (Answer, pages 3 and 4) how the
various limitations are read on the disclosure of Wilder. In
particular, the Examiner points to the illustrations in Wilder’s
Figures 2, 5A, 6-8, and 12A and the accompanying description at
columns 10-18, 20, and 21. In our view, the Examiner’s analysis
is sufficiently reasonable that we find that the Examiner has as
least satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
anticipation. The burden is, therefore, upon Appellant to come
forward with evidence and/or arguments which persuasively rebut
the Examiner’s prima facie case. Only those arguments actually
made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the Brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellant’s arguments in response focus on the Examiner’s
alleged misinterpretation of the Wilder reference, which, in
Appellant’s view, has no disclosure of any circuitry which allows
“. . . the reading of each pixel value in a set of CMOS sensor
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007