ZHOU et al. V. KEAGY et al. - Page 44





                                                                                  Interference No. 104,649              
                                                                                              Page No. 41               
             mirrors to fold the emitted radiation so as to change the ratio between the maximum length and             
             maximum width of the system. (Paper No. 27, p. 6).                                                         
                    Keagy argues that Ranalli '448 teaches a device that has the folding of light by mirrors.           
             According to Keagy, the mirrors of Ranalli allow for a fingerprint system with a shorter length            
             such that the subject matter of Zhou claim 14 is obvious in view of the subject matter of Zhou             
             claim 10. (Keagy Opposition 4, Paper No. 37, pages 7-8). Specifically, Keagy alleges that                  
             Ranalli discloses and teaches:                                                                             
                    [A]n optical system with mirrors to fold emitted radiation so as to change the                      
                    "ratio between the maximum length and maximum width of the sensing system"                          
                    as taught in Zhou '858 and claimed in claim 14.                                                     
             (Paper No. 37, pages 8-10). From this, Keagy concludes that it "Would have been obvious to use             
             mirrors to fold the radiation in the claim 10 subject matter if one wished to have a more compact          
             device." (Paper No. 37, p. 10, emphasis added). Additionally, Keagy cites Chen '649 as                     
             teaching the use of a detector array having a smaller width than the width of the sheet prism and          
             a dernagnification of the image. (Paper No. 37, p. 6).                                                     
                    Obviousness must be based upon objective evidence of record and requires that particular            
             findings be made as to why a skilled artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would            
             have selected the specific components for combination in the manner claimed. Specifically, the             
             Federal Circuit has stated that:                                                                           
                    "The factual inquiry whether to combine references must be thorough and                             
                    searching." Id. [McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52, 60                      
                    USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cit. 2001)] It must be based onab.jective evidence of                       
                    record. This precedent has been reinforced in myriad decisions, andư cannot be                      
                    dispensed with. See, e.g., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris                        
                    Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1124-25, 56 USPQ2d 1456, 1459 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("a                             








Page:  Previous  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007