Appeal No. 1999-2274
Application No. 08/811,787
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
The initial burden is on the examiner to establish a case of prima facie
obviousness. In our view, the examiner has not presented such a case.
While the rejection of all the claims relies on either Alvarez or Brooks as the primary
reference to show an imaging system and other claimed elements, the examiner admits
that neither of these primary references discloses a filter between the phosphors. The
examiner relies on Allport for the teaching of positioning a filter as claimed.
In order for a reference to be properly applied in a rejection based on 35 U.S.C. §
103, that reference must be from an art that is “analogous” to the claimed subject matter.
A reference is “analogous art” if it is within an inventor’s field of endeavor or, if not within
the same field of endeavor, if reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the
inventor. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-9, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007