Appeal No. 1999-2274
Application No. 08/811,787
to be, prima facie, overwhelming, we need not reach a conclusion on this evidence
because the examiner has not even established a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to the instant claimed subject matter since Allport, a lynchpin of the examiner’s
case, has been held by us to constitute nonanalogous art.
In addition to the nonanalogous nature of Allport, there are additional reasons for
finding that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to the claimed subject matter. While appellant has contested many of the
examiner’s findings and complains about the dearth of evidence presented by the
examiner regarding certain claim limitations, the examiner takes the position that much is
“well known” or merely “an obvious design choice.” We refer to page 5 of the answer, for
example, where the examiner contends that Allport’s filter should be combined with Brooks
because using a thinner first phosphor “is a well-known technique.” The examiner contends
that the use of “other types of light detectors like a photodiode...as compared to film (in
Alvarez et al) or photomultipliers (in Brooks) is an obvious design choice.” The examiner
also contends that the use of different filter materials is “a design choice.” The use of
stacked detectors is “well known.” The use of different size detectors is “well known.” The
use of different phosphors is “a design
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007