Appeal No. 2006-0830
Application No. 09/911,954
purpose for this specific range and the artisan would have expected
an equally obvious result within this range and the range disclosed
by Sobol.
Appellant’s response is to merely rely on the arguments set
forth anent independent claim 15 (see page 15 of the principal
brief). Accordingly, since we sustained the rejection of claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we will also sustain the rejection of
claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to the rejection of claims 25 and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the examiner specifically points out, at page 12 of
the answer, how Sobol is applied against the claims, noting that
Sobol does not disclose the camera comprising a lens system that
forms an image on the photo sensor, and relies on Denber for such a
teaching at Figure 1, items 20 and 22.
Appellant’s response, at pages 15-16 of the principal brief,
is to, again, merely issue a general allegation of the references
not teaching or suggesting the claimed subject matter, but
appellant fails to point out any error in the examiner’s rationale.
The more specific argument at page 5 of the reply brief merely
reiterates the earlier argument about Sobol not describing color
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007