Appeal 2007-1132
Application 10/036,999
sites emitted in response to the interrogating light; and altering
the interrogating light power for a first site on the array package
during the scanning step . . . based on location of the first site or
on a determination that the emitted signal from the first site will
be outside a predetermined range absent the altering . . . .
(Answer 7.) In addition, the Examiner finds that Bengtsson teaches that “the
system turns off the lasers for a fraction of time during the row scanning
. . .” (id.). In our opinion, turning the interrogating light (e.g., laser) off
during a row scan is an alteration of the power. That said, the Examiner has
failed to identify, and we do not find, a teaching in Bengtsson that the power
of the interrogating light is altered based on either the location of the first
site, or on a determination that the emitted signal from the first site will be
outside a predetermined range absent the altering as is required by claim 7.
To the contrary, according to Bengtsson, “[i]f the lasers are turned on and
off, the system determines if N consecutively acquired pixels are saturated in
a given scan line . . .” (Bengtsson, col. 8, ll. 25-27). Stated differently, the
lasers are turned on and off as part of Bengtsson’s calibration step, not in
response to the location of a first site, or a determination that the emitted
signal will be outside of a predetermined range absent the altering (Br. 14).
For the forgoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 7-11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Bengtsson, Rava, and Lehman.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013