Appeal 2007-1480
Application 10/667,078
Therefore, we cannot agree with Appellant that the ordinary meaning in the
art controls and that a position detector that includes an imaging array in the
Specification would control the interpretation of the claim language (Br. 5.)
We find that accepting Appellant’s argument would require us to read
limitations as to the structure of the imaging device into the express
language of independent claim 1, which we will not do. Therefore,
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and independent claim 5 and dependent claims 3, 4, 6,
7, and 9, which Appellant has elected to group therewith.
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 8, Appellant argues the
Examiner has not pointed to any teaching of determining a brightness value
for a medium and that Endo merely teaches measuring the output of the
photodetector (Br. 5-6). The Examiner maintains that the presence or
absence of light relative to a threshold value is determined by Endo at
paragraph [0127] (Answer 4 and 15). We find this disclosure to sufficiently
teach the claimed invention. Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of dependent claim 2
and 8.
With respect to dependent claim 10, Appellant argues that the
combination of the two teachings would have two moving parts. This
argument is not commensurate in scope with dependent claim 10 since such
limitation is not recited in dependent claim 10 (Br. 5). Therefore,
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Appellant summarily argues that
Endo can already determine the size of the medium, and, therefore, there is
no motivation to combine the two teachings (Br. 6). If Appellant admits
that Endo can determine the edges from the measured data and argues that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013