Appeal No. 2002-1064 Page 9
Application No. 09/126,385
The argument presented by the appellants (brief, pp. 2-4) does not convince us
that the subject matter of claim 19 is novel. In that regard, while the appellants
disclosed threat image projection system may be more sophisticated than the system of
Maron, the difference(s) has not been set forth in claim 19. The appellants argue that
their system tests to see if the stored contraband image that has been selected can be
integrated to fit into the image of a piece of baggage being inspected by a baggage
screening system and that Maron does not. However, claim 19 is not commensurate in
scope with this argument since claim 19 does not recite this feature/function.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed. As set forth above, claims 1 to 8, 10 to 18 and 20
to 25 stand or fall with claim 19. Thereby, claims 1 to 8, 10 to 18 and 20 to 25 fall with
claim 19. Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 8, 10 to
18 and 20 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is also affirmed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, is reversed and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to
8 and 10 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007