Appeal No. 1999-2274
Application No. 08/811,787
choice.” The use of various circuits and processing procedures in order to obtain an
image is “a design choice well-known in the art.” While an examiner may, oftentimes,
properly address an element as “well known” or “design choice,” in the instant case, it
appears that the examiner has applied that reasoning to much of the claim limitations
even in the face of appellant’s arguments to the contrary. When challenged about what is,
in fact, “well known,” an examiner is required to submit objective evidence of the allegation.
Even though Allport is not analogous art, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for a finding of
obviousness, Allport may still be applicable, theoretically, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, since
analogousness of the art is not relevant where the reference is anticipatory of the claimed
subject matter. Clearly, Allport is not applicable to independent claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 21,
22 and to the claims dependent therefrom, since Allport is not directed to imaging.
Independent claims 5, 24, 38, 39 and 40 are not directed to imaging. However, even
these broad claims do not appear to be met by Allport. For example, claim 40 requires
first and second components to be aligned wherein the second component receives
radiation when the radiation has penetrated through a portion of the first component.
Figure 2 of Allport appears to show such an arrangement, with
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007