Appeal 2007-1983
Application 09/800,366
claims on pages 8 and 9 of the Answer, and (2) Appellant has not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner's prima facie case, but merely reiterated
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. 32-36). For the foregoing reasons, the rejection is therefore
sustained.
Claims 18 and 19
Likewise, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 18 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Wood
‘149, Wood ‘419, and Thiede. We conclude that (1) the Examiner has
established at least a prima facie case of obviousness for these claims on
pages 9 and 10 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. 37). For the foregoing
reasons, the rejection is therefore sustained.
Claims 30-32
Likewise, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 30-32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Wood
‘149, Wood ‘419, Duvall, and Thiede. We conclude that (1) the Examiner
has established at least a prima facie case of obviousness for these claims on
Page 10 of the Answer, and (2) Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the
Examiner's prima facie case Rather, Appellant merely reiterated the
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013