Appeal 2007-1983
Application 09/800,366
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OPINION
The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 7, 9-17, 20, and 22-26
We first consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 9-17, 20,
and 22-26. Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the Wood references (Answer 3-10). Regarding independent
claim 1, Appellant argues that Wood ‘419 does not apply multiple bias
pulses substantially sequentially during a frame time to each microbolometer
in the array, nor does the reference measure multiple signals corresponding
to the bias pulses as claimed. Rather, Appellant contends, Wood ‘419
sweeps the microbolometers in the array with a single, five-microsecond
pulse (Br. 18-22) (emphasis added).
Appellant further argues that the approaches used in the Wood
references solve different problems: Wood ‘149 describes a still frame
camera where multiple scans may be used to increase sensitivity, but Wood
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013