Appeal No. 2003-1486
Application No. 09/152,016
claims. Further, Frontino discloses nothing about the detector
for the embodiments of Figures 8 and 9, so it is unclear if the
detector is fully illuminated, as required by the claims. Since
Frontino fails to satisfy each and every limitation, Frontino
cannot anticipate the claims. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the anticipation rejection of claims 4, 6 through 9, 11, 13, 14,
and 16.
As to the obviousness rejection of claims 5, 10, 15, 17, and
18, the examiner relies solely on Frontino, which we have found
supra to be lacking as to the limitation of "without focusing."
Since the examiner has provided no further art nor any convincing
line of reasoning why it would have been obvious to modify
Frontino to overcome the above-noted deficiency, we cannot
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 5, 10, 15, 17, and
18.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007