Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199 Page 12
are accumulated, as asserted by the Examiner.
As explained above, during normal operation,
Fouilloy will accumulate charges below the
value V0, and during dazzling or jamming.
Fouilloy will discard charges below V0.
For at least these reasons, Fouilloy does
not disclose or suggest discarding radiation
hits below a predetermined energy threshold
and accumulating charges resulting from hits
above the predetermined energy threshold, as
required by claim 61 of the application.
Turning to Hack, although appellants do not argue the
teachings of Hack, we find that Hack does not make up for the
basic deficiencies of Fouilloy. From all of the above, we find
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 61. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 61
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
In addition, we reverse the rejection of claims 62-72 as the
references to Sugawa, Tower and Kramer do not make up for the
deficiencies of the basic combination of Fouilloy and Hack. The
rejection of claims 62-72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is therefore
reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007