Appeal No. 2006-1435 Page 12
Application No. 10/352,299
Sasanuma discloses a general imaging method that works with any
type of radiation, and since UV radiation was well known, it
would have been obvious to the artisan to pick a UV source
[answer, page 11]. Appellant responds that there is no
motivation to substitute a UV source in Sasanuma other than
appellant’s own disclosure [reply brief, page 4].
We will not sustain this rejection because we agree with
appellant that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. The examiner admits that Sasanuma fails to
teach an imaging system using a UV light source, but the examiner
simply concludes that it would have been obvious to the artisan
to make the modification in Sasanuma because a UV light source is
an art-recognized equivalent of a non-UV light source. We agree
with appellant that these two light sources are not art
recognized equivalents because they can not simply be
interchanged with an expectation of the same results. The
examiner needs to at least apply a secondary teaching that it was
known to also create images of objects using UV light and
detecting the fluoresence from the objects. The examiner simply
has not provided the evidence necessary to support this
rejection.
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, 13-18, 20-
22 and 24-33 as anticipated by Philyaw is sustained with respect
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007