Appeal 2007-1704
Application 09/942,131
We also make the observation that, while the Examiner’s analysis
emphasizes the relationship of the number of detector elements to desired
resolution, the physical size of the detector array, as well as the density of
the detector arrangement within the array, are also factors which have an
impact on resolution. We find no teachings, however, in any of the cited
prior art which relate desired resolution to physical array size or density, let
alone any relevant teachings which relate physical size or density to the
specifically claimed numerical range of detector elements.
We have also reviewed the Schanz reference, applied by the Examiner
to address the claimed parallel processing feature, but find nothing which
overcomes the deficiencies of Dukor in disclosing the specifically claimed
number of individual detector elements. Similarly, we also find no
disclosure in any of the cited Iddan, Dumas, Harris, and Taylor references,
applied by the Examiner to address various features of the dependent claims,
which would overcome the innate deficiencies of Dukor discussed supra.
To summarize, it does not matter how strong the Examiner’s
convictions are that the claimed invention would have been obvious, or
whether we might have an intuitive belief that the claimed invention would
have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Neither
circumstance is a substitute for evidence lacking in the record before us.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the applied
prior art references, even if combined, do not support the obviousness
rejection. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 1, 25, 40, and 44, nor of claims 3-13, 26-39,
and 41-43 dependent thereon.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013