Appeal 2007-0156
Application 10/386,326
in our view, satisfy the claimed requirement that a scan “pattern” be
generated when a reflective scanning mode is selected.
Despite the above-noted deficiencies in the disclosure of Rubley with
respect to the claimed reflective scanning mode, however, we agree with the
Examiner that the requirements of claim 1 are satisfied since the language of
claim 1 is set forth in alternative format. In other words, the transmissive
medium scanning mode disclosed by Rubley in which a fluorescent lamp
118 backlights a transmissive medium to be scanned satisfies the
requirements of claim 1 since, after a selection is made between a
transmissive scanning mode or a reflective scanning mode, the claim
requires only the operation of the transmissive scanning mode or the
reflective scanning mode.
In view of the above discussion, since at least one of the two
alternative claimed limitation requirements are present in the disclosure of
Rubley, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1,
as well as dependent claim 10 not separately argued by Appellant, is
sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection, based on Rubley, of separately argued dependent claim 6, we
sustain this rejection as well. While dependent claim 6 adds further
limitations for each of the claimed transmissive and reflective scanning
modes, the claim language is written in the same alternative language format
as appears in parent independent claim 1. Accordingly, since Rubley
provides for the additional claimed feature of capturing an image exposed by
backlighting in the reflective scanning mode, the claimed requirements are
satisfied.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013