Appeal No. 2005-2057 Page 4
Application No. 09/906,362
Here, the appellant neither asserts that claims 1-28 do not stand or fall together
nor argues any of the claims separately. Although he reads the independent claims on
his specification, (Appeal Br. at 2-3), this is not an argument that the claims are
separately patentable. Therefore, claims 2-28 stand or fall with representative claim 1.
With this representation in mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or
the appellant in toto, we focus on the two points of contention therebetween.
A. TIMING OF INTEGRATION
The examiner finds, "French . . . . teach[es] that the '[s]uitable detectors' 'capable
of converting energy from detected light into signals that may be processed by the
apparatus, and by the processor in particular' comprise 'charge-coupled
devices (CCDs)' in an 'analog (e.g., current-integration)' mode." (Examiner's Answer at
9.) The appellant argues, "French appears to teach away from1 conducting the
integration prior to or during the detection. At column 18, lines 55-58, French states that
'detectors comprise any mechanism capable of converting energy from detected light
into signals that may be processed by the apparatus, and bv the processor in particular.'
(emphasis added)." (Appeal Br. at 5.) The examiner responds, "the features upon
1"[T]he question whether a reference 'teaches away' from the invention is
inapplicable to an anticipation analysis." Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell International
Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007