Appeal 2007-1230
Application 10/633,935
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
ANALYSIS
Representative Claim 11
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 11.
Zeng states that a photodetector optically communicates with the detector
elements 106 (Zeng, col. 7, ll. 32-35). The reference, however, does not
show the photodetector, let alone the details of the optical communication
between the photodetector and the detector elements.
Nevertheless, Zeng’s omission of the specific details regarding the
mounting and orientation of the photodetector relative to the detector
elements strongly suggests that Zeng considered such details to be within the
level of skilled artisans – electrical engineers with several years of related
industry experience. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the
specific details regarding the orientation and mounting of the photodiode
with respect to the detector elements would have been within the level of
skilled artisans.
The issue, therefore, turns on a relatively narrow question: On this
record, would the skilled artisan have reasonably coupled the photodetector
in Zeng to an end of each elongated detector element normal to the
detectors’ elongated dimension as claimed? Based on the record before us,
we answer this question in the affirmative.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013