Appeal No. 1999-2019
Application No. 08/646,810
Neither of these identified sections, however, speak to the above-noted
requirements of independent claims 1, 6, and 9. As such, a prima facie case of
obviousness has not been established for the subject matter set out forth by those claims.
The rejection for independent claim 18 (Final Rejection, pages 7-8) points to the same
sections of Kojima (i.e., in the “Summary of the Invention” and Kojima’s claim 37) for
disclosing or suggesting the admitted deficiencies of Karasawa. We also conclude that
prima facie obviousness of the subject matter of claim 18 has not been shown, in view of
the evidence provided.
In light of the claims depending from independent claims 1, 6, 9, and 18, we
therefore do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-9, 18-21, 23-35, 37-41, and 43.
We next turn to regard the subject matter of independent claims 10 and 22.
Appellants allege (Brief, page 10) that the thing missing from the teachings of Karasawa
and Kojima is “a step of exposing an image pickup device after a relative movement is
completed.” Appellants deem that column 11, lines 34-39 of Kojima is irrelevant to
exposing an image pickup device “after relative movement is completed.” This is
because, according to appellants, the passage pertains to an initial calibration step in
which the sensor is moved to the position of a white plate. “As such, this passage is not
relevant to the identified feature of claim 10.” (Id.)
Kojima discloses, as shown in Figure 1 and described at column 6, line 56 through
column 8, line 10, an image reader and reproducing system upon which an original
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007