Appeal No. 2005-0439 Page 8
Application No. 09/106,994
2. Obviousness Determination
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. The question of obviousness is
"based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches
explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1696
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459,
467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). "'A prima
facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the prior art itself
would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill
in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, Elabd "is directed to image sensor devices. . . ." Col. 4, l. 29. In
particular, "FIG. 3 is a block diagram of . . . a sensor device . . . utilizing a vertical
interline transfer (IT) arrangement along with a color filter wheel." Col. 3, ll. 14-16.
"[T]he device 480, as shown in FIG. 3, [features] . . . columns 482 of photosensitive
charge-forming elements 484. . . ." Col. 5, ll. 15-17. Because "vertical CCD
registers 488 . . . quickly transfer the charge from the associated columns 482 of
charge-forming elements 484 into the storage register 490," id. at ll. 19-21, we find that
the reference transfers charges formed by photosensitive sensors to storage locations.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007