Appeal No. 2004-1487
Application No. 09/085,519
from the prior art would have suggested the modification proposed
by the Examiner. In particular, Appellant argues that even
though the analog subtraction of Mendis could have been performed
in the digital domain, that does not make such a modification
obvious unless the prior art suggest such a change. See pages 5
and 6 of Appellant's brief. Appellant concedes that the Mendis
reference teaches the readout of analog signals from a pixel
array. However, Appellant points out that Mendis fails to teach
that the fixed pattern noise is subtracted in the digital domain.
Appellant further points out that Panicacci, although showing
analog-to-digital converters, fails to suggest or teach this
claimed limitation as well. See pages 7 and 8 of Appellant's
brief.
When determining obviousness, "[t]he factual inquiry whether
to combine references must be thorough and searching." In re
Lee, 277 F.3d at 1343, 61 USPQ2d at 1433 citing McGinley v.
Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52, 60 USPQ2d 1001,
1008 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "It must be based on objective evidence
of record." Id. "Broad conclusory statements regarding the
teaching of multiple references, standing alone, are not
'evidence.'" In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614,
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007