Appeal No. 2001-2065
Application 09/124,871
modification. We fully agree with Appellant's arguments (at
Br10-12) that Vranish, Schulz, and Santos do not suggest the
difference at issue.
The Examiner stated during prosecution (Paper No. 12,
p. 5):
"[I]t is extremely well known in the sensing arts, regardless
of what type of sensor, to place additional sensors where a
discrepancy in the sensing has taken place, or to increase
resolution of the monitored area." This statement is not
repeated in the examiner's answer. Nevertheless, it appears
that the Examiner's reasoning is based on this thinking. The
Examiner's statement relies on impermissible hindsight in view
of Appellant's disclosure because nowhere does Allen discuss a
problem in sensing. However, even if the accuracy problem was
known, the Examiner has not established that the claimed
solution of dividing the signal receiving element would have
been an obvious solution to the problem.
The Examiner points to several statements in Allen (EA6)
and states that he "has a problem understanding the
appellant's position of exacerbated error detection of a
missile being related to the depth of the missile and the size
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007