Appeal No. 2002-1301
Application No. 09/233,983
teaching the claimed invention except for controlling the amount
of light according to an operational slew rate of the transducer
unit. The examiner cites Pelton as teaching that the slew rate
of a transducer is compromised by the amount of light being used
during image scanning. The examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to modify the light controlling
method of Arimoto to control the slew rate of the transducer as
taught by Pelton [answer, pages 9-10].
Appellant argues that there is nothing in Pelton that
suggests adjusting illumination based on transducer performance
characteristics. Appellant notes that the slew capacitor of
Pelton simply filters out signals with too high of a slew rate.
Thus, appellant argues that there is no suggestion in either
reference of controlling an amount of light according to an
operational slew rate of the transducer unit [brief, pages
19-20].
The examiner responds by restating the findings of the
rejection that Pelton teaches the idea that the slew rate of a
transducer unit is compromised [answer, pages 13-14].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 20
and 24, which are grouped together, for essentially the reasons
argued by appellant in the brief. We agree with appellant that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007