Appeal No. 2002-1301
Application No. 09/233,983
Appellant argues that contrary to the examiner’s
assertion, there is no determination made or control used in
Ishida that is based on a frequency characteristic of the
transducer. Thus, appellant argues that there is no suggestion
in either reference of a method for measuring a frequency
characteristic in order to provide a basis for adjusting the
illumination [brief, pages 14-16].
The examiner responds that appellant is improperly
attacking the references individually. The examiner repeats the
findings of the rejection that Arimoto teaches a light control
means and Ishida teaches that the proper output of a transducer
depends on a frequency characteristic of the transducer [answer,
pages 11-13].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-
7 and 22, which form the first group of claims, for essentially
the reasons argued by appellant in the brief. We agree with
appellant that Ishida provides no teaching or suggestion that the
frequency characteristics of a transducer should be used in
controlling an illumination means for directing light toward an
original document. Although the examiner is correct that Arimoto
teaches an illumination control means, there is no teaching
within the applied prior art that the illumination means of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007