Appeal No. 95-1220
Application 07/972,279
that Appellants have not argued any specific limitation, but
only argue whether those skilled in the art would have reasons
to make the modification.
The Examiner argues on page 12 of the answer that
Boone teaches all of the limitations recited in Appellants’
claim 24 other than “a slit for passing the rotated sensor
input image therethrough.” The Examiner argues that Peppers
teaches a slit for passing replicated sensor input images in
column 11, lines 7-14 [sic, 7-15] and column 8, lines 10-20,
as well as a detector array in column 8, line 67, through
column 9, line 6. The Examiner also shows that Boone suggests
using a slit as a reference image for determining angular
cross-correlation in column 10, lines 15-21.
At the outset, we note that Appellants have
indicated on page 5 of the brief the groupings of the claims.
In par-ticular, Appellants state that claims 7 and 24 stand or
fall together. In addition, on page 9 of the brief,
Appellants argue claims 7 and 24 as a group. 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(5) amended October 22, 1993 states:
For each ground of rejection which
appellant contests and which applies to
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007