Appeal No. 2003-0261
Application No. 09/126,203
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs1
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellants and examiner, for the reasons
stated infra we reverse the examiner’s rejections of claims 16 through 39 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Decision
Appellants point out on page 5 of the brief that each claim on appeal requires
sequentially providing either an output, or a filtered transmission, or a signal which
includes a component of visible and infrared light energies. Appellants argue that the
cited references do not teach this limitation. On pages 5 though 8 of the brief
appellants provide a comprehensive argument that the color pass filters of Fontenot do
not teach passing visible light and infrared.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the initial burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can satisfy this
burden by showing that some objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally
1This decision is based upon the Appeal Brief received April 9, 2002 (certified as being mailed on March
20, 2002, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.8(a)) and the Reply Brief received June 12, 2002 (certified as
being mailed on June 5, 2002, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.8(a)).
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007