Appeal 2007-1983
Application 09/800,366
For the reasons previously discussed with respect to claim 1, we do
not consider Appellant to have persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness for claims 3-5. The Examiner’s rejection of these
claims is therefore sustained.
Claim 6
Likewise, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Wood ‘149,
Wood ‘419, APA, and Thiede. We conclude that (1) the Examiner has
established at least a prima facie case of obviousness for this claim on page
7 of the Answer, and (2) Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the
Examiner's prima facie case. Rather, Appellant merely reiterated the
unpersuasive argument that the prior art fails to disclose applying two or
more bias pulses substantially sequentially to each microbolometer in an
array in each frame time (Br. 30). For the foregoing reasons, the rejection is
therefore sustained.
Claims 8, 21, 27, 29, and 33-39
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 21, 27, 29,
and 33-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings
of Wood ‘149, Wood ‘419, and Duvall. Based on the record before us, we
conclude that (1) the Examiner has established at least a prima facie case of
obviousness for this claim on pages 8-9 of the Answer, and (2) Appellant
has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's prima facie case.
First, we note that regarding dependent claims 8 and 21, Appellant
merely reiterates that the prior art fails to disclose applying two or more bias
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013