Appeal No. 2001-2201
Application .09/065, 997
comprising . . . an opaque circular baffle placed in front of
said detecting pinhole[.]” Taking a reasonably broad
interpretation, claim 1 requires the baffle to placed in the
front of the detecting pinhole. We also note that independent
claims 4 through 6 and 27 have a different scope from claim 1.
These claims will be addressed separately.
Using the above interpretation, we next review the rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Appellant’s admitted prior art and Kino or Tanaami. The Examiner
states that admitted prior art discloses all the recited
elements, except for an opaque baffle positioned in front of the
detection pinhole. See Examiner’s Answer, Page 3, line 17
through page 4, line 1. To provide a motivation for having the
opaque baffle in front of the detection pinhole of Appellant’s
admitted prior art, the Examiner states that both Kino and
Tanaami teach placing opaque baffles in front of the detecting
means in order to block unwanted stray light from reaching the
detector and to improve resolution. See Examiner’s Answer, page
4, lines 1 through 6.
Appellant argues that neither Kino nor Tanaami teach placing
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007