Appeal 2007-0205
Application 09/812,302
these sensors is identified by Su, we agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a
combination of different sensor types in view of the teachings of Allen,
which suggests a more compact arrangement (FF 13).
CONCLUSION
In view of the analysis above, we find that Su prima facie anticipates
the subject matter of claims 1 and 7 as the reference teaches all the recited
features. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of claims 1 and 7
over Su is sustained.
Additionally, based on our findings above and the weight of
arguments presented by Appellants and the Examiner’s response, we also
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 68 over Su, of claims 2, 3,
8-10, 12, 13, 29, 30, 33, 34, 56, 59, 60, and 69 over Su and Zimmermann, of
claims 4-6, 16-20, 22-26, 43-47, 49, 53, 56-58, 62, 63, 66, 67, and 77-81
over Su and Lowe, of claim 31 over Su, Lowe, and Zimmermann, and of
claims 50-53 and 55 over Su, Lowe, and Allen.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 and claims 2-6, 8-10, 12, 13, 16-20, 22-26, 29-31, 33, 34, 43-47, 49-53,
55-60, 62, 63, 66-69, and 71-81 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013