Appeal No. 1997-0897
Application No. 08/227,992 Page 4
arguments actually made by appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered. See 37
CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants'
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner's
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner's answer. Upon consideration of the
record before us, we reverse.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 13, and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being inoperative and therefore lacking
utility. The examiner’s position (answer, page 3) is that under
the Scheimpflug principle, if the angle of the document image
plane, i.e., the transparent covering, changes relative to the
fixed sensor, areas of the image will be out of focus. According
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007