Appeal No. 1997-2988
Application No. 08/045,499
the distance between the scanner and the printer is less than
the length of the paper. The Figure
18 embodiment also uses rollers to move the paper by the
printer and the scanner. Nothing in claims 11 and 12 requires
the scanner to interact with the paper in the paper path.
In view of the foregoing, we find that all of the
limitations of apparatus claims 11 and 12 read directly on the
Figure 11 and Figure 18 embodiments of Hirose. In affirming a
multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Board
may rely on one reference alone without designating it as a
new ground of rejection. In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458, n.2,
150 USPQ 441, 444, n.2 (CCPA 1966); In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491,
496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961). Thus, the obviousness
rejection of claims 11 and 12 is sustained based upon the
teachings of Hirose considered alone.
The remainder of the claims on appeal require interaction
between the scanner and the paper in the paper path. As
indicated supra, the scanners in the two noted embodiments of
Hirose do not interact with the paper in the paper path. In
the Figure 4 embodiment of Hirose, there exists a first paper
path P -P for the scanner 8, and a second paper path P -P for3 4 1 2
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007