Appeal No. 1996-3284
Application 08/154,864
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
The Examiner contends [answer, page 3] that “[o]ne ...
would have been motivated to substitute one light modulating
means in Garcia for each light element of Ciongoli to obtain a
more realistic image.” Furthermore, the Examiner employs
Bassett [answer, pages 3 to 4] to show that “a large number of
fiber optics could transmit a 2-D image.” Appellant argues
[brief, pages 15 to 17] that the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case, that there is no suggestion to
combine, and that the proposed combination fails to yield the
claimed invention.
We are convinced by the Appellant’s arguments. The
Examiner has not tackled the main problem in Ciongoli, i.e.,
as claimed, the collimating means are used to create an image
instead of the focussing lens 15 in Ciongoli. It is true that
-13-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007