Appeal No. 2003-1856
Application No. 08/879,322
Wilkinson is not one involving fruit therein nor is anything
within the starch matrix itself of interest for imaging, it is
difficult to see how the artisan, viewing these two teachings,
would come away with a suggestion for measuring fruit particles
in a sugar and/or starch matrix without removing the fruit
particles from this matrix.
As such, we find that no prima facie case of obviousness has
been established with regard to rejecting claims 1, 3-6 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Queisser and Wilkinson.
Because Bolle was introduced only for a teaching of a sample
tray with a light transmitting bottom and Sistler was introduced
for its teaching of placing a sample tray spatially between an
illuminating section and a capturing location, neither reference
providing for the deficiency of Queisser and Wilkinson, we also
will not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 7-10 and 13-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of Queisser, Wilkinson,
Bolle and Sistler.
We turn, now, to the rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Heck in view of
Wilkinson and Sistler.
Clearly, Heck is directed to analyzing fruit, but it
analyzes topographic surface features of fruit for classification
-10–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007