Appeal No. 2001-0390
Application 08/932,238
corresponding light receiving elements 1306, 1502 and 1612,
respectively, we agree with the examiner that claim 1 is fully
met by the admitted prior art.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by the
admitted prior art is sustained. Since the dependent claims have
not been separately argued, they fall with independent claim 1.
Although appellants have nominally argued independent claims 43
and 52 separately, the recitations of these claims and the
arguments made by appellants in the brief are essentially the
same as we considered above with respect to claim 1. Therefore,
for the reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of
claims 2-6 and 43-52 as unpatentable over the admitted prior art.
We now consider the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated
by the disclosure of Funada. The examiner has indicated how he
reads the invention of claim 1 on the disclosure of Funada
[answer, pages4-5]. Appellants argue that the light emission
portions relied on by the examiner (windows 206) are not light
emission portions as defined in the claims. Appellants argue
that windows 206 simply pass light reflected from the document to
the light receiving elements but do not emit light [brief, pages
11-12]. The examiner responds that at least one of the light
incident windows of the light emitting elements in Funada is
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007