Appeal No. 2001-2065
Application 09/124,871
could place additional sensors in Allen's system for increased
resolution absent some motivation why increased resolution
would have been desirable. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("The mere fact
that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by
the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification.")(citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness as to claim 1. The rejection of claims 1-8 is
reversed. Nevertheless, we make the following comments
regarding the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 3.
As to claim 2, the Examiner reasons (EA11): "[I]t is
known to provide additional sensors for increased resolution
and placement of such sensors would necessarily be in the
position where such detection enhancement is needed." As to
claim 3, the Examiner states (EA11): "[W]ith respect to the
size of the sensors that are in the adjacent larger signal
sensing area being substantially equal to the area of the
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007