Appeal No. 2006-1378
Application No. 09/845,852
invention. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Palcic.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make reference
to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as
support for the prior art rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that claims 1 and 10
comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view that the
disclosure of Palcic does not fully meet the invention as set forth in claim 3.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1 and 10 under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112. With respect to both claims, the examiner finds that the phrase “a
calibration gain for a photosensor corresponding to the line is normal” is vague because
it is not clear what a normal calibration means [answer, page 4]. Appellant argues that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007