Appeal No. 95-1220
Application 07/972,279
annular correlation. Appellants argue on page 8 of the brief
that such a statement is a conclusion and not a showing that
Peppers teaches the use of annular correlation.
After a careful review of Peppers, we find that
Peppers does not disclose or even suggest the use of annular
correlation. We are not inclined to dispense with proof by
evidence when the proposition at issue is not supported by a
teaching in a prior art reference, common knowledge or
unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing court requires
this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case. In re
Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA
1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-
72 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 3, 7 through 10, 16 through 22 and 24 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Boone and Peppers. In regard to independent claim 3,
Appellants argue on pages 8 and 9 of the brief that neither
Boone nor Peppers teaches “a fixed mask containing a series of
rotated slits for passing the replicated sensor input image
therethrough.” In regard to independent claim 20, Appellants
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007