Appeal 2007-1983
Application 09/800,366
pulses substantially sequentially to each microbolometer in an array in each
frame time (Br. 31). As discussed supra, we are not persuaded by this
argument. For the reasons previously discussed, the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims is sustained.
Regarding independent claim 27, Appellant further contends that there
is ostensibly no teaching or suggestion to apply two or more substantially
sequential bias pulses within a given time frame since Wood ‘419 already
uses a single pulse in a frame time to reduce heat generation which results in
a non-uniform temperature (Br. 32).
First, our previous discussion regarding applying multiple bias pulses
during a frame time applies equally here and we incorporate that discussion
by reference.7 Second, we find Appellant’s arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. In this regard, a “substantially
uniform” temperature as claimed is merely a matter of degree: a degree that
is relative to a particular temperature range. Simply put, even a 2° C
difference in temperature is “substantially uniform” at least with respect to
wider temperature ranges.
We recognize that Appellant contrasts the “substantially uniform”
temperature profile achieved with the claimed invention in Figure 5 of the
present application with that of the prior art in Figure 4 which shows an
approximately two-degree difference. This profile, however, merely reflects
a preferred embodiment of the invention -- an embodiment that hardly limits
the scope of the claim. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323, 75
USPQ2d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[A]lthough the specification often
describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly
7 See p. 5-8, supra, of this opinion.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013