Appeal 2007-1132
Application 10/036,999
the interrogating light power may be reduced based on a
determination that the emitted signal from the first site will
exceed a predetermined value, or based on location of the first
site. If the determination is used this can be based, for example,
on the results of a pre-scan or on the signal emitted from the
first site when the interrogating light initially illuminates the
first site.
(Specification 4: 14-18.) The Examiner finds that
Bengtsson teach[es] a method comprising scanning
interrogating light across multiple sites of an array detecting
signal from respective scanned sites emitted in response to the
light and altering the power of the interrogating light for a first
site which is an array feature and wherein interrogating light
power is altered based on the signal emitted from the first site
when the light initially illuminates the first site (i.e. scan line
301 is scanned, attenuation is adjusted (power decreased) to
avoid saturation, Column 5, lines 43-47 and . . . 49-64).
(Answer 4.) What the Examiner has keyed in on is Bengtsson’s pre-
scanning process, which Appellants’ Specification distinguishes from the
process required by claim 5. The Examiner has not identified, and we do not
find, a teaching in Bengtsson of a scanning process wherein the power of the
interrogating light is altered based on the signal emitted from a first site,
when the interrogating light initially illuminates the first site as is required
by claim 5. The same is true of independent claim 18.
For the foregoing reasons we reverse the rejection of claims 2-5 and
18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Bengtsson and Rava.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013