Appeal 2007-1983
Application 09/800,366
warned against confining the claims to those embodiments...[C]laims may
embrace different subject matter than is illustrated in the specific
embodiments in the specification” (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted)). In short, absent some specific reference to a range of
temperatures in the claim, the two-degree difference shown in Figure 6 of
Wood ‘419 fully meets a “substantially uniform” temperature during a frame
time as claimed.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, we also find the Examiner’s reliance
on Duvall reasonable for the teaching of varying certain waveform
parameters of bias pulses to minimize unwanted detector heating (Answer
18-19). Significantly, these varied parameters include, among other things,
varying pulse width and time between the pulses (i.e., frequency of the
pulses) (Duvall, col. 6, ll. 43-53; Figs. 8(a)-(d)). Although these bias
waveforms have gradual, predetermined rise-times as opposed to
instantaneous rise-times of bias pulses shown in Wood ‘149, the skilled
artisan would nevertheless glean from this teaching that adjusting various
pulse parameters, including pulse width and frequency, will provide an
added degree of control over the detector’s temperature, since such
parameters directly affect heating of the detector. In view of Duvall’s
teaching, we conclude that the skilled artisan would have ample suggestion
to adjust the frequency and width of the bias pulses in the arrangement of
Wood references to more readily control heating of the detectors, including
heating in a more uniform manner. For the foregoing reasons, we will
therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27.
Regarding dependent claims 29 and 33-39, we conclude that (1) the
Examiner has established at least a prima facie case of obviousness for these
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013