Appeal No. 2002-1301
Application No. 09/233,983
the slew rate disclosed in Pelton has nothing to do with
controlling an illuminator which produces light that is cast
toward an original document. The applied prior art provides no
basis for the artisan to control the light in Arimoto based on an
operational slew rate of the transducer unit as claimed.
With respect to independent claim 21, the examiner cites
Arimoto as teaching the claimed invention except for calculating
the transducer’s saturation levels according to an operational
slew rate of the transducer. 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
10-11].
Appellant argues that there is no suggestion in either
reference of measuring slew rate of the transducer unit [brief,
page 21].
The examiner responds by restating the findings of the
rejection that Pelton teaches the claimed slew rate [answer,
pages 13-14].
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007