Appeal No. 2006-1900
Application No. 10/163,946
at least one position detector in said portable scanner, said at least one position
detector comprising an optical detector and an aperture assembly adjacent said optical
detector, said aperture assembly having a first aperture size and a second aperture size,
said aperture assembly being adjustable between said first aperture size and said second
aperture size.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
SanGregory et al. (SanGregory) 5,432,576 Jul. 11, 1995
Mikoshiba et al. (Mikoshiba) 6,160,960 Dec. 12, 2000
(filed Sep. 10, 1998)
Claims 1 through 4, 7, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Mikoshiba. The remaining claims on appeal stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, as evidence of obviousness as to claims 5, 6,
8 through 12, 15, 16, 20 and 21, the examiner relies on Mikoshiba alone, with the
addition of SanGregory as to claim 17.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the examiner, reference is
made to the brief and the reply brief for appellant’s positions, and to the answer for the
examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer, as expanded upon here,
we sustain the respective rejections of certain claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35
U.S.C. § 103 of the claims on appeal.
At the outset, we note appellant presents arguments only as to independent claims
1 and 25 on appeal. No other claim within the first through third stated rejections has
been argued by the appellant before us.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007