Appeal No. 2005-0439 Page 4
Application No. 09/106,994
28. The method of claim 18, wherein said at least two storage locations
comprise at least three storage locations for each pixel sensor.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 18, 19, 21, and 22-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,754,229 ("Elabd") and U.S. Patent No. 4,845,540
("Baker"). Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Elabd; Baker; and U.S. Patent No. 5,872,596 ("Yanai").
II. OPINION
Our opinion addresses the claims in the following order:
• claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 18-24
• claims 25-28.
A. CLAIMS 1, 3-6, 8-10, AND 18-24
"[T]o assure separate review by the Board of individual claims within each group
of claims subject to a common ground of rejection, an appellant's brief to the Board
must contain a clear statement for each rejection: (a) asserting that the patentability of
claims within the group of claims subject to this rejection do not stand or fall together,
and (b) identifying which individual claim or claims within the group are separately
patentable and the reasons why the examiner's rejection should not be sustained."
In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing
37 C.F.R. §1.192(c)(7) (2001)). "If the brief fails to meet either requirement, the Board
Because there is no rejection for indefiniteness before us, however, we leave this matter
to the examiner and the appellants.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007