Appeal 2007-1132
Application 10/036,999
would be with an interrogating light of decreased power, e.g., one-half
power.
Accordingly, we find that Bengtsson expressly teaches every element
of Appellants’ claimed invention but for an addressable array. (See also
Answer 3.)
The Examiner relies on Rava to teach an addressable array (id.). We
find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Rava. We also note that
Appellants do not dispute this teaching in Rava. Accordingly, we conclude
that it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to modify Bengtsson’s method to utilize an addressable array.
We recognize Appellants’ assertion that Bengtsson does “not teach
the element of [c]laim 1 in which power of the interrogating light is
decreased for a first site on the array package during scanning wherein the
first site is outside an area occupied by the array” (Br. 10). For the
foregoing reason, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion.
Accordingly, we find that claim 1 would have been prima facie
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made in view of the combination of Bengtsson and Rava. Therefore, we
affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Bengtsson and Rava. However, because our reasoning
differs from that of the Examiner we designate our affirmance as a new
ground of rejection.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013