Appeal No. 95-1220
Application 07/972,279
more than one claim, it will be presumed
that the rejected claims stand or fall
together unless a statement is included
that the rejected claims do
not stand or fall together, and in the
appropriate part or parts of the argument
under subparagraph (c)(6) of this section
appel-lant presents reasons as to why
appellant considers the rejected claims to
be separately patentable.
As per 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), which was controlling at the time
of Appellants filing the brief, we will, thereby, consider
Appellant’s claims 7 and 24 to stand or fall together, with
claim 24 being considered the representative claim.
The Federal Circuit reasons in Para-Ordnance Mfg.,
73 F.3d at 1088-89, 37 USPQ2d at 1239-40, that for the deter-
mination of obviousness, the court must answer whether one of
ordinary skill in the art who sets out to solve the problem
and who had before him in his workshop the prior art, would
have been reasonably expected to use the solution that is
claimed by the Appellants. We find that Boone teaches in
column 10, lines 15-18, that by selecting a slit as the
reference image, the angular cross-correlation algorithm as
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007