Appeal No. 2005-0439 Page 10
Application No. 09/106,994
1. Claim Construction
"[T]he Board must give claims their broadest reasonable construction. . . ." In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, claim 28
recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "said at least two storage locations
comprise at least three storage locations for each pixel sensor." Giving the
representative claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require at
least three storage locations for a photosensitive sensor.
2. Obviousness Determination
"Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re
Merck, 800 F.2d, 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)). "'Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.'" Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1025, 226 USPQ
881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881).
Here, the rejection of claim 28 is based on a combination of reference that
includes Elabd. As mentioned regarding claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 18, 19, 21, and 22-28,
Figure 3 of the reference shows that portions of the storage register 490 are designated
"R", "G", and "B." We find that these portions constitute three storage locations for a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007