Appeal No. 2006-2345
Application No. 10/366,458
in blurred images (col. 3, lines 56-64). As pointed out by the
Examiner and outlined in MPEP § 2123, although not identified as
a preferred embodiment, Nakamura suggests moving the infrared
sensor in the direction of the optical axis when the
magnification is varied (col. 3, lines 65-67). While the
complicated structure of a moveable infrared sensor may justify
using a transparent element to vary the focal position (col. 4,
lines 1-3 & 19-22), Nakamura, nonetheless, recognizes moving the
infrared sensor as a way to absorb variations in the focal
position, which is pertinent to the problems identified by
Appellant (specification, paragraphs [0005] and [0008]).
Therefore, contrary to Appellant’s position (reply brief, page
4), one of ordinary skill in the art would not be led away from
moving the infrared sensor suggested by the alternative
embodiment in Nakamura, particularly when complexity is not an
obstacle.
A motivation to combine prior art references may be found in
the nature of the problem to be solved. Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Also, evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to modify
a reference may flow from the prior art references themselves,
the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007