Appeal No. 98-1287
Application 08/359,706
relative angular displacement of the wheels. Column 8, lines 44-61 of the reference discloses that the
angle is determined from sensing the discrete areas of the CCD array upon which the light falls, after
passing through the slits 35 of mask 33. Compare Fig. 8 (zero degrees of relative angle) with Fig. 9
(non-zero degrees). Column 9, lines 17-35 discloses that the emitter is caused to have cycles of light
and dark, with the dark exposure subtracted from the light portion of the cycle in order to cancel
“background noise”.
Appellants argue that the patent to McClenahan is not analogous art. (See Brief at 9-11.)
Appellants also allege, in the final paragraph of page 13 of the Brief (nominally in support of Group II of
the claims), that substantive differences exist between appellants’ disclosed “emitter for emitting flash
light” and the apparatus of McClenahan.
The examiner has the initial burden under Section 103 of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. The burden may be met only by showing some objective teaching in the prior art or that
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would lead that individual to combine
the relevant teachings of the references. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
The determination of whether or not McClenahan is analogous art is unnecessary. Even if the
artisan were presumed to be familiar with the teachings of McClenahan, it has not been established that
an artisan would have been led by the teachings of the references, or knowledge generally available to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007