Appeal No. 2006-1279
Application No. 10/249,005
the image analysis capabilities of Berson that include the
optical detector, image detector and analysis system, and
interface reasonably suggest the image transmitter limitation
of claim 4.
Although Berson does not disclose a decontamination system,
we agree with the examiner that Fink is reasonably combinable
with Berson for the reasons stated by the examiner [see answer,
pages 3 and 4]. We note that the examiner has cited ample
motivation to combine Fink with Berson on Pages 4 and 6 of the
answer. We agree with the examiner that the skilled artisan
would have reasonably relied on Fink for the teaching of
decontaminating mail in the mail handling system of Berson.
The examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 4 is therefore
sustained.
Furthermore, since appellant has not separately argued the
patentability of dependent claims 6-8, these claims fall with
independent claim 4. The rejection of claims 6-8 is therefore
sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Berson, Fink, and Gilpatrick. The examiner
essentially finds that the claim differs from Berson and Fink in
calling for the use of soft x-rays. The examiner cites
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007