Appeal No. 1997-2030
Application 08/400,287
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) the following:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966),
focused on the procedural and evidentiary processes in reaching a
conclusion under Section 103. As adapted to ex parte procedure, Graham
is interpreted as continuing to place the "burden of proof on the Patent Office
which requires it to produce the factual basis for its rejection of an
application under section 102 and 103". Citing In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1020, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967).
We note that independent claim 25 recites "a video camera picking up the output
optical image, said video camera having a plurality of scanning modes including a
fluroscopic mode and a radiographic imaging mode, . . . said video camera having a
beam scanning area on an image pickup surface thereof which is the same for both said
fluroscopic mode and said radiographic imaging mode". We further note that
independent claims 34, 38 and 39 recite the same or similar language.
Upon our close review of Yokouchi, Grossel and Nields, we fail to find that any of
these references, individually or together, suggest a video camera having the same beam
scanning area in both a fluroscopic mode and a radiographic image mode. Therefore, we
will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 25 through 29 and 34 through 39.
However, we note that Appellants' independent claim 30 does not recite the above
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007