Appeal No. 2006-1020
Application No. 09/899,066
We further note that a stronger rejection may have
been made based on motivation to modify Chino in view of
Beis; however, we look at the totality of the teachings of
the references and it is apparent to us that the skilled
artisan having both of these teachings before him/her would
clearly have found the instant claimed invention obvious,
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues that the combination of Beis and
Chino involves “improper hindsight reconstruction” and that
the examiner’s motivation involves “nothing more than a
broad, conclusory, speculative statement” (Brief at page
20). Newly presented evidence is provided in the
Examiner’s Answer to support motivation (Answer at page
23). Specifically, Williams teaches that it would be
desirable to incorporate autozoom in a B&W and color CCD
surveillance camera. As alluded to by appellant, if the
citation of a new prior art reference is necessary to
support a rejection, it must be included in the statement
of rejection. Even if the prior art reference is cited to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007