Appeal 2007-1404
Application 10/212,316
for night vision and for inter vehicle communications. Although instant
claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) over DC, Dunning, and Owen,
Owen may be considered merely cumulative in its teachings. DC and
Dunning, considered together, are sufficient to demonstrate prima facie
obviousness of the subject matter as a whole of claim 7.
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments in the Brief in
support of claim 7, but find them nonpersuasive and not supported by the
record.
Appellants point to an isolated embodiment of Dunning, alleging that
the “object” of the reference is to provide an inter vehicle communication
system using low cost sensors such as photo-diodes. (Appeal Br. 5.) We
disagree with the contention regarding the so-called object of Dunning.
Moreover, claim 7 does not specify how much one should pay for sensors.
Nor does the claim specify what type of sensor may be used in the
demodulating of the laser light. Although the claim recites “demodulating
laser light received by said camera,” the claim is silent with respect to what
elements might effect demodulation. Nor does the claim preclude additional
elements (e.g., sensors) that might receive light from the camera for
demodulation.
We agree with Appellants (Appeal Br. 5-6) to the extent that Dunning
does not describe a night vision system including a camera to provide
images. DC, however, does. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013