Ex Parte Bohn - Page 4



                  Appeal No. 2006-1900                                                                                         
                  Application No. 10/163,946                                                                                   
                  rather than any structural element recited.  Additionally, appellant’s urging at page 6 of                   
                  the principal brief on appeal that the resulting use of a camera in like manner would end                    
                  up with blurred images is misplaced.  In fact, Mikoshiba teaches the exact feature                           
                  appellant urge is not taught, namely the ability of Mikoshiba’s camera to pick-up a                          
                  plurality of still images in real time, thus having the ability to provide output images on                  
                  the electronic viewfinder 273 in Figure 1 as moving images.  Note column 14, lines 26                        
                  through 30.  In like manner, we find misplaced, the argument at the bottom of page 2 of                      
                  the reply brief that Mikoshiba discloses a still camera “and not a scanner in which                          
                  sequential scan line images are acquired via relative movement between the imaging                           
                  device and the object.”  Clearly, there is no line scanner recited in independent claim 1 on                 
                  appeal as also argued at page 2 of the reply brief.                                                          
                          A different intended use of the same structure as in the prior art does not prohibit                 
                  a statutory anticipation rejection, for example.  Indeed, it has been stated by our                          
                  reviewing court that "the absence of a disclosure relating to function does not defeat the                   
                  Board’s finding of anticipation.  It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use               
                  for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable” (case citations                     
                  omitted).  In re Schrieber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).                      
                  The court concludes at 128 F.3d 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1431-32, that "Schrieber’s contention                        
                  that his structure will be used to dispense popcorn does not have patentable weight if the                   
                  structure is already known, regardless of whether it has ever been used in any way in                        
                  connection with popcorn” (emphasis added).  Such reasoning obviously applies to                              
                  rejections under   35 U.S.C.   § 103.  Schrieber confirms the guidance provided in Ex                        
                  parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1987), that a recitation with respect                      

                                                              4                                                                



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007