Appeal No. 2006-2345
Application No. 10/366,458
After a review of the references, we find the Examiner’s
analysis of the references, their relevance to the claimed
subject matter and the position taken with respect to
unpatentability of the claims to be reasonable. In that regard,
we are guided by the Federal Circuit in deciding in which fields
a person of ordinary skill would reasonably be expected to look
for a solution to the problem facing the inventor. The court
states in In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1445-46 (Fed. Cir. 1992) that in order to rely on a reference as
a basis for obviousness rejection, the reference must either be
in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor was involved such that an inventor would reasonably be
motivated to consult in order to solve the problem confronting
the inventor. See In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ
313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202
USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
Nakamura detects a visible image and an infrared image for
determining a positional relationship between the two images
(col. 2, lines 19-27). However, in case of using a variable
magnification lens in detecting the infrared image, Nakamura
identifies that excessive variations in the focal position result
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007