Ex Parte Hosier et al - Page 2




             Appeal No. 2005-1057                                                           Page 2               
             Application No. 09/802,792                                                                          


                                                BACKGROUND                                                       
                   The appellants' invention relates to a photosensitive chip for creating electrical            
             signals for an original image (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is          
             set forth in the appendix to the appellants' brief.                                                 
                                            The prior art references                                             
                   The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the               
             appealed claims are:                                                                                
             Jedlicka et al. (Jedlicka)              5,604,362                 Feb. 18, 1997                     
             Koizumi et al. (Koizumi)                5,698,892                 Dec. 16, 1997                     

                                                 The rejections                                                  
                   Claims 1, 6 to 10, 20, 22 to 24 and 26 to 30 stand rejected under U.S.C. § 102 as             
             being anticipated by Koizumi.                                                                       
                   Claims 2 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                    
             over Koizumi.                                                                                       
                   Claims 3 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                    
             over Koizumi in view of Jedlicka.                                                                   
                   Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                 
             the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer                
             (mailed November 18, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the                  









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007