Appeal No. 1997-4190
Application No. 08/221,721
been combined by the artisan. The mere fact that the
references both relate to industrial applications of
photographing items on a moving conveyor belt, is not, per se,
enough. The examiner has not provided us with sufficient
reason for the artisan, viewing both of these teachings, to
have modified Kokubo in any manner with the teachings of Hunt.
What, exactly, in Kokubo, is the examiner suggesting should be
modified and why? While the principal answer is a lengthy
one, in our view, the examiner never successfully comes to
grips with a convincing reason to make the modifications
alleged to have been obvious.
While the examiner relied on various other references for
different claim limitations, since, in our view, the Yang,
Nagasaki and Nishizawa references do not supply the
deficiencies of the Kokubo/Hunt combination, we will not
sustain any of the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §
103 based on various combinations of references.
Since each of the independent claims have, at least, one
or more of the limitations discussed supra, which limitations
are not seen to be taught or suggested by the various
combinations of applied references, we see no need for
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007